Slashdot Mirror
FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker
During the hours that Congress was debating codifying the Bush administration's wiretapping by revising the FISA law, the Department of Justice was raiding the home of former Justice official Thomas M. Tamm to identify the person who first brought the illicit program to light: "The agents seized Tamm's desktop computer, two of his children's laptops and a cache of personal files... the raid was related to a Justice criminal probe into who leaked details of the warrantless eavesdropping program to the news media... James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the raid was 'amazing' and shows the administration's misplaced priorities: using FBI agents to track down leakers instead of processing intel warrants to close the [purported surveillance] gaps."
"FBI Raids Home of Suspected NSA Leaker ".
Oops - NSA, not NASA.
(Will NASA diaper jokes ever go out of style? That too depends ... :-)
James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the raid was 'typical' of the administration's misplaced priorities: using any government branch to track down anyone they percieve as disloyal instead of processing intel warrants to close the [purported surveillance] gaps."
Fuckers. Its not enough for them to lose the election. We should be seeing jail time for this sort of overreaching corruption.
I feel safer, already.
Thank God we're finally catching these damned terrorists. I hope he hangs.
It makes perfect sense. Since the ACLU types tried to slow down the wiretaps, the FBI had plenty of free cycles to go after leakers of secret programs.
Actions like these are the difference between a fascist dictatorship and a democracy (yes, even though the USA is a republic, it is also ment to be a democracy so don't bring it up thanks).
Saying that "The State" is right no matter what, is fascist. Currently the government is purging or minimalizing the non-fascist elements within the state. Of course they're doing it on the path of least resistance, so they're keeping up the veil of the justice system, but with the swampy legal system, far reaching laws and by simply ignoring basic rights (habeas corpus, etc.), without means to challenge the state it is a mere facade.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Can I hold my breath for 1 year, 4 months, and 24 days?
Could someone tell me ho legal this is? Seems to me that police type groups shouldn't be able to pursue what could easily be construed as a vendetta.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
Without the leaker, we -- the American public -- would still be in the dark. Without the leaker, our government would still be conducting warrantless wiretapping. The leaker actually helped to strengthen our democracy. He did not endanger it.
Yet, why is Washington trying to send the leaker to federal prison? This massive raid by the FBI smacks of Russian-style fascism.
...policy that's been determined through considered rational thought, and which has organically evolved to meet the challenges of the times.
"...It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today. That is the atomic and subatomic and galactic structure of things today! And YOU have meddled with the primal forces of nature, and YOU WILL ATONE!..."
What?
No need. Merely read the Constitution. Its in there in black and white that this is illegal.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Come on, Gonzales keeps hinting at other secret domestic surveillance programs that the President has authorized outside of FISA. (When questioned by Congress, he kept saying he's only answering about THIS PARTICULAR program that has been put under FISA and when asked if there are other domestic spying programs he refused to answer the question).
So where are the other brave souls who will reveal what Pres has been up to? I bet it's a Nixon style spy on your political enemies program, and that Gonzales is issuing a coded threat when he hints at the other domestic spying program.
Simple: he broke the law.
He may have been justified. Hell, I think he's a hero, and if I were on the jury I'd vote to acquit.
But no matter how justified, he leaked classified information, which his superiors and co-workers expected him to hold in confidence. At the very least the government should know who he is, and determine whether he should still have access to that kind of information. Who's to say he won't leak more information, and that it will be justified that time too?
Who is really REALLY afriad of a "national emergency" that requires a "temporary extension of the current administration" happening in the next year or so? And not just in the sarcastic "it would figure" kind of way, but a "it might actually happen, then what?!" kind of way.
To boldly use to and too two times and get it right too! They're not gonna believe their eyes when they see it there!
and getting states, banks, credit companies, airlines, etc. to do massive data collection. And it's not like it started with them - the FBI wiretap enthusiasts like Louis Freeh, the NSA anti-public-crypto people, the Echelon project, etc. all date to the Clinton or GHWBush/Reagan administrations or earlier.
It's going to take a *long* time to tear down that stuff and turn this back into America again, and most of that won't happen unless we replace the current Executive Branch with one that's actually committed to doing it. Most of the major candidates aren't talking like that - certainly Hillary and Rudy and John Edwards and McCain and Romney don't have a history of wanting to do that, and you're pretty much down to Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul before you'd get to anybody who'd talk about that kind of concept as a campaign strategy. Perhaps if the Democrats not only win the White House but also increase their control of the Senate and House they'll have some willingness to do that after a couple of years.
For now, though, Homeland Security Anonymous Spokescritters report that Enhanced Terrorist Surveillance Program has been reporting increased frequency of terrorist chatter saying "Booga Booga", so if you're even suggesting that we decrease wiretapping then you're a threat to national security and our precious bodily fluids.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Can you feel that chill too?
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I was researching the USA PATRIOT Act for Wikipedia, and all those people like Orin Kerr insisted that the changes to FISA wouldn't lead to abuses. Guess we can see what a hollow promise that was.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You know what freaks me out? I can easily see, in the light of this type of story, a time when your post would flag you for investigation.
It's not clear, or the obvious path, and I don't think it will happen. Pure, utter disregard for the Constitution and Justice like this makes me see it as a possibility, though.
I also don't think the next election will make much of a difference, unless everyone running for president except Ron Paul dies the week before the election.
Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
to "The Gestapo have Landed".
Are we ready to impeach yet?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
If the information that was allegedly possibly leaked had been enough for somebody to actually prosecute some Executive Branch people (whether FBI or Pentagon or NSA or whatever) and they'd gotten convicted already, *then* this kind of raid might count as "obstruction of justice", but they're acting sufficiently proactively that they'll at least get away with it until the Bush Administration is out of office. And probably after that as well.
------
* If they don't have warrants or permission, well, the Bush Administration thinks it's legal anyway, and they've got a Justice Department who wouldn't prosecute them for doing it and they've stacked the Federal courts as well.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Rape is such a nasty word. Couldn't we call it "suprise sex"?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Your government only wants to protect you. Unpleasant ideas are the enemy of the state. Relax, be happy, consume.
"To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
Finding this leak is important, but finding the Valerie Plame leaker isn't. Why wasn't Cheney's or Rove's office raided?
The purpose of the raid is as much to deter others who are thinking of exposing government wrongdoing as it is to punnish Mr Tamm.
A totally transparent populace ruled by a totally secret Government is the perfect model of national security!
[Republican parody mode off]
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
The correct term is preconsentual sex.
They got the wrong person. It was actually a /. user who leaked the information.
It's a good thing our government has it's priorities straight and is punishing those that make the right choice and blow the whistle on illegal activities instead of encouraging those in key positions of power to bend, and break, the law whenever it benefits the party in power. Leaking information to foreign governments: bad. Leaking information about illegal activities occurring regularly in a program with no judicial or congressional oversight to the national media: good. Whoever actually leaked the information should be given a fucking medal and a pay raise. Since he or she will probably be fired, tried for treason, and blackballed out of any governmental or "secret heavy job" from here on out, I'd like to thank you for sticking to your moral compass and doing what you believed was correct. You did a great service to the people of this country, and you deserve much better than what may come your way in the future.
Strictly speaking the Enabling Act (aka "Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation") equivalent was the Patriot act (aka "UNITING AND STRENGTHENING AMERICA BY PROVIDING APPROPRIATE TOOLS REQUIRED TO INTERCEPT AND OBSTRUCT TERRORISM").
The systematic placement of Bush cronies throughout the government was the like the period 1933-37.
The extension of the 'Enabling act' twice corresponds to the extending of the Patriot act.
The burning down of the Reichstag, is the burning of the twin towers.
So far we haven't (thank god) had a night of the long knives where opponents were executed in extra judicial killings.
But we have had a build up of weapons to control a US populace, the Homeland Security's 'Puke Ray' and the Microwave burn ray.
However, there is a difference between the US and the UK. The last time the Met became really corrupt, the Hertfordshire Police Force was called in to investigate them. (Disclaimer: Guess where I grew up.) Even so, it happened, and a significant number of Met officers were exposed. This is one example of why separate and independent police forces with local rather that national accoujntability are such a good idea.
The problem is, who will investigate the FBI? That seems to be the fundamental weakness of the US system. In the UK, MI5 and MI6 have no powers of arrest. They have to get in regular police to arrest suspects. Although clunky, this provides a check and balance. If the FBI is corrupted or ordered by the Administration to do corrupt things, who is to stop them?
Pining for the fjords
shows the administration's misplaced priorities: using FBI agents to track down leakers instead of processing intel
Just like not everybody at your work is a CEO, not everybody at the FBI processes Intel.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Was there any loot in the fridge?
You mean the part that says reasonable or probable cause?
That has always been open to discussion and congress along with the court have moved the targets quite often. The real question is whether the president can move the target of the definition. As far as the constitution is concerned, it doesn't say it is illegal, it says certain conditions have to exist. It is these conditions that are in doubt.
It's about time the Bush administration got serious about going after those who leak national security information in an effort to undermine the war on terror.
Last I heard, they were calling it an "unplanned sexual event"...
No, seriously.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
Before you rush out and vote for Ron Paul, thinking he's a libertarian, consider what his agenda is:
- FOR building the Great Wall on the Mexico border, in the best tradition of the Berlin wall and the Israeli wall.
- FOR making abortion illegal (also in the first trimester, and, get this, for rape victims).
- FOR lowering taxes, with the highest tax breaks to those with highest income.
- FOR unconditional support to Israel.
- FOR school prayers and creationism in school. This makes the mind boggle how a pagan can possibly support him.
- FOR unconstitutional wire taps and surveillance without court orders.
- AGAINST international treaties, including being FOR the US being excluded from international courts.
- AGAINST pollution restriction or tax breaks for "green" energy.
- AGAINST minimum income laws.
- AGAINST health care reform or socialized medicine.
- AGAINST same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption.
- AGAINST public education, or minimum level of education.
Yes, he's against the Iraq war because he's a right-wing isolationist, not because he thought Iraq was being unfairly treated.
He's a neo-conservative Christian, even farther to the right than most Bush cronies, and is the most dangerous presidential candidate there is. Just check his congressional voting record for always voting based on his personal agenda and not in line with the party, even when begged to do so by the party whip in order to secure a bargain. As a president, he would not rescind the extra powers Bush has usurped from congress, but use them, far more than even Bush has done. The guy is so dangerous it's not even funny, and the grassroot support he has among techies is just mind-boggling. Do people not see what he is, but believe the BS about him being a libertarian?
Step 1) Put the technological infrastructure in place
Step 2) Place your political friends and allies in charge of the infrastructure
Step 3) Reduce measures to control abuse of they system by claiming it's in the interests of "national security"
Step 4) Undermine the efforts of your political enemies with your newfound power
---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.
>Thank God we're finally catching these damned terrorists. I hope he hangs.
... that drink ... and that television series...
Trivial, by the date in the second link you've got almost a week advance warning compared to my European vacation calendar: (European time August 7. 2007, link: US time August 13. 2007)
Now
Perhaps someday Bureaucracy and Mr Money will not be so one and the same.
...how? I just don't see...
Pain of Salvation - Iter Impius
[Martius, son of Mars]
[Obitus Diutinus]
[Mr. Money:]
I woke up today
Expecting to find all that I sought
And climb the mountains of the life I bought
Finally I'm at the top of every hierarchy
Unfortunately there is no one left
But me
I woke up today
To a world that's ground to dust, dirt and stone
I'm the king upon this withering throne
I ruled every forest, every mountain, every sea
Now there're but ruins left to rule for me
And... you see, it beckons me;
Life turned its back on us
How could you just agree?
I woke up today
To a world devoid of forests and trees
Drained of every ocean, every sea
Just like a useless brick upon the shore
The morning after the storm
That swept the bridge away
Relentless tide
No anger
Just this relentless time
That calls us all on
But...
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dust, dirt and stone
I rule rage rod and rattling of bones
I am on my own
I am all alone
Everything is gone
Stuck forever here
Already cold
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne...
I'm never crossing that line
Leaving this world behind
I will stay on my own
On this bloodstained throne
I rule the ruins and wrecks
And the dirt and the dust and the stone
I'm the ruler of rage rod and rust
And the rattling of bones
Ruler of ruin...
We have concluded that the acronym U.S.E. (Unplanned Sexual Event), when used regularly to replace the word "rape", will remove the stigma associated with this sometimes unpleasant situation.
From: Bapists From Brownback. It's a pro-life thing, apparently.
Wow. Just wow.
Fnord.
Politics are just a distraction. While they're busy entertaining everyone with their constant bickering over bullshit issues big business is free to do as it pleases - bribing regulators, exporting not just the jobs but also the technology that made the west the world's industrial powerhouse to China, and generally pissing on people's freedom just because they can. It doesn't matter who's elected because, with very few exceptions, they'll be bought within minutes of taking office. Just think of how many millions of dollars worth of donations all the candidates are bragging about right now - you think they're likely to forget where that money came from?
People are fighting the wrong monster. Don't donate to the other candidate just because his hands aren't quite as bloody as the current puppet's - protest the moneyed idiocy that likes the status quo so much. The government can't make Chinese imports safe, but tens of millions of people refusing to waste their money on them might. Assuming those people act before there's nothing but the toxic toothpaste left, that is.
What's the big deal? I mean, the last time the president hunted someone down on a political vendetta regarding a leak, he ended up commuting the sentence before a single minute of jail time was served. Or are we cynical enough to think that he did that only because Scooter Libby is a Republican?
Oh, wait. Yeah, I guess we are.
Fuck this country. I'm tempted to finish my education and then emigrate to Canada; America doesn't deserve my contribution to it's economy.
Yes mods, I'm pretty sure I've got the score right.....
/. is still a minority. And you can take all the 'polls' you want, data can be slanted in any direction with those (1 out of 5 doctors say so).
As easy as it is to condem the current administration, lets not forget that that position has the power it does because the collective slowly gave up power to the Executive branch. Folks can scream all they want about "I didn't give them power," but in reality, those were the minority. Sorry folks, a Majority on
I know the threats to Impeach are really a 'payback' for the Clinton Impeachment. It's hard to believe, but yes, the democrats are as mean, underhanded, and unforgiving as the republicans. Each party's agenda is priority one for each of the respective parties, an none of them include you (the individual).
And for the nieve in the audience, this type of stuff probably has been going on for years in the Government. I'm not defending it, I'm just making sure you don't get on the media train again and realize that the republicans or Bush just invented this type of thing. (Vince Foster anyone?)
Bitter and negative you say? Yeah, probably. I call it reality.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Matters of national security are made secret relative to their threat level.
There exists doomsday-capable weaponry on the Earth; can you deny it?
Do you believe that openness is the best policy when it comes to managing such threats while humanity is contained to a single planet?
Beyond monomaniac-moderator peer-conformance and inappropriate, fallacious joking, I'd really like to hear a sensible argument for the abolishment of state secrets given the current capabilities of mankind and the state of the world. I tend to think there isn't one, but if you have one, go ahead and post it.
The article reminds of the case of the guy who was the anonymous whistle-blower for Abu Grahib. In a NY times article, he tells how he first felt paranoid about his fellow guards but worse was to come when Rumsfeld congratulated him on the Abu Grahib whistle-blowing in front of a crowded canteen. Even though the whistle-blower received a letter of apology after, I share his disbelief that Rumsfeld - a control-freak and a stickler for detail - was unaware of the consequences of his actions.
The whole tenor of this administration - from Bush downwards - is one of petty and mean-mindedness. It will be good when they go, for they do nothing but poison the American body politic and bring it into dis-repute.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
... in a song
Radio 4 interviewed the man who exposed the situation in Abu Graib, it was on the radio this morning so you can listen to it online. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/thechoice/
...) and so the whole family had to get moved to another part of the country and set up with new lives. Seems like most of his fellow soldiers supported what he did - which is nice to know given the bad publicity the US military normally gets, but enough hometown neighbours considered him a traitor to mean he had to have the upheaval to ensure the safety of his family. A subtle hint from Rumsfeld?
30 minutes, nice broadcast. Sounds like he's getting support from the US government but Rumsfeld screwed his whole life up by announcing his name to the world. People harassed his wife and his wife's sister (apparently they couldn't spell Iraq right when they graffitti'd her house, spelling it "Iroc"
Nice bald statement. Perhaps you could instead point out the section so forty thousand people don't have to search.
How many people in the street and on news broadcasts would agree to the phrase "Life is getting back to normal after the terrorist atrocities in September 2001"?
You have to keep reading. Though, I will admit, the pro-life lobby tends to be so dismissively unconcerned with female dignity that it was plausible enough on the fringes. That it was remotely possible and believable that a presidential candidate could endorse such a callous thing...well, hell, one of them has been talking lately of wiping entire cities off the map if Muslims continue to irritate him. So, I suppose anything goes.
All the techniques ever used to make men moral have been themselves thoroughly immoral... (Nietzsche)
,,, as it pretty damn clear that the law breakers they are looking for are non other than themselves....
Thats pretty pathetic that they not only want to spy on US citizens but that they want to punish anyone who followes "for the people by the people" mentality by letting the people know what is not being done by the people and for the people...
Hmmm, kinda sound like communism is taking over the country doesn't it?
No matter what the nature of the classified information, no matter what your political opinion of the current regime, NO ONE PERSON HAS THE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO DECLASSIFY CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.
That's just the way it is.
Research shows that 67% of those who use the term "research shows", are just making shit up.
So it was "the police force" not "officer dibble, number 421355". No privacy for the police force, no privacy breach for Officer Dibble.
Its in there in black and white that this is illegal.
It's amazing how many shades of grey there are in black and white. Fire in a crowded theatre etc.
Thank you so much. I thought this morning was gonna be slow for me, but that's gonna keep me laughing all day.
I do agree with your on-topic points though.
There are plenty of options within the system he could have used to object. Instead he decided to betray national security. Traitor.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Individuals simply do not have the right to expose secret programs even if they do not like them. If you are angry about this but support the prosecution of Scooter Libby then you have some explaining to do ( particularly when Scooter leaked NOTHING; it was Bush critic Richard Armitage in the State Department who did the actual Valerie Plame leaking ) If this guy really did the leak, then he hurt national security by tipping-off enemies. It matters not if most enemies assumed we were listening; if even ONE enemy did not think of it but was clued-in by the leak then harm was done. If he leaked but the program ultimately is found to be an illegal program and people involved in the program are sent off to jail, then the leaker should get leniency as Scooter got a break... but even if you like this leak, it is still NO LESS ILLEGAL to DO the leak.
Bush has sat still while method after method of tracking terrorists has been revealed...not for reasons of suggested illegality, been reported on the front page of the New York Times. Yeah, I know- you probably have bought the idea of an administration gone power-hungry, but I'm telling you it's not.
A fraction of the Muslim world wants us dead. Period. They've been blowing up a handful of people and a boatload of innocent bystanders (many times, Muslims as well) JUST because they're American or Jewish, for nearly half a century. See the Kobar Towers (sp?), see Beruit, see Bali, and hundreds of other places where the crime was being in a place where radicle Muslims could reach a detonator. Let's also not forget that 9/11 was _before_ we continued the war against Saddam, which was halted in a ceasefire, not victory. Then the ceasefire was breached 492 times by Saddam firing at the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.
Some people don't get it. Others let the lion's share of the media do the thinking for them. Leaving Iraq won't stop these people. Being nice to them won't stop these people. This thin-slice of the Muslim world hates because they know no other way to vent from their misery, and we get to be the targets.
But even so, time after time we see the front page of Democratic newspapers extol the 'horror' of diligence, and shut down another means of tracking these people before they do harm. In my America they would have been shot on television, with Muslim captions as they died. This isn't something that we can play around with: they're coming. Hell, they're here- watch the news for all the times the "incompetent" terrorists couldn't get it together. The Democrat news services are all about making their attempts seem foolish.
But when a Democrat is president, and he tries to send the police for the next big strike when an aircraft carrier is called for, will you remember this conversation?
Also notice that, as the election looms, Democrats are starting to 'give' on this key issue: now they're starting to seem 'hawkish' by comparison....they know someone has to do the actual hard work, and it could turn out to be them.
If you hate Don Rumsfeld and you don't know why- that's a clue you've been programmed. If you hate Carl Rove and can't come up with an actual reason, there's another. And if you want to vote for Hillary, check first if you can remember a single accomplishment other than being born female.
60% of Americans have had their heads turned by the world's second-largest propaganda war this world has seen. Remember your history; without it you're a tool of anyone with 80% of the media. And no, it's not the Conservatives.
--- For a good time mail uce@ftc.gov
Secrecy in government is essential. War strategy requires secrecy. Intelligence gathering requires secrecy. Treaty negotiations require secrecy. Law enforcement requires secrecy. The Founders knew this, and they created the Executive specifically to allow for secrecy. See Federalist #64 and #70. Many of the posts here seem wholly ignorant of this basic fact of governance. All executive offices have ways to report wrongdoing, without compromising national security. For example, any member of the intelligence agencies can petition the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Office of the Inspector General who has a special office for oversight of the NSA. Our intelligence agencies cannot keep secrets. This is a fatal problem for a nation-state. The leaker revealed war secrets during armed conflicts. He ought to be imprisoned for life.
Society is nothing but collaboration.
Tiqui - must be the smartest person at in this thread. I am a Viet Nam vet (not like Kerry). Leaks are very important. they lead to un-warranted deaths... I remind everyone about the Warrant Officer Walker case. During the the Viet Nam war he leaked codes, documents and thousands of bits of info to the French ? No the enemy! How many of our guys died cuz Walker Lied? He swore (Like I did) to defend ... He sold out.
One thing I miss about military justices is that you were punished the same way if you "attempted" a crime as if you had already "completed" the crime. In the civililan world a guy can be released from jail because "it" was his first offense ... Oh, like they did a crime by accident?
leaks are not an accident they come from negligence or intentional acts.
just a plain ol' guy
Remember, kids:
Leaking the identity of intelligence assets who are working on WMD matters, in a time of war, is good.
Leaking the existence of a program that has been ruled illegal is bad.
They ARE talking about Scooter Libby, right?
I am open source, and Linux baby!
We live in a police state...(at least the Americans among us do).
Jack Bauer is in the super secret NSA communication intercept room along with various other people.
...
Unnamed extra #1: "Sir, you need to see this. It's Osama's cell phone! And the call is coming across OUR circuit!"
JB: "Dammit! He's up to something. I want that call intercepted and get me a translator! I want to know what he's saying and to whom he is saying it!"
Unnamed extra #2: "But sir, if we don't get a warrant within the next 72 hours, that will be ILLEGAL!"
JB: "No problem. I only need 24. Just tap that call!"
JB walks over to a different phone and picks it up.
JB: "Get me the FISA court! This is an emergency!"
Begin one-way telephone communication bit
JB: "I have an emergency and I need a warrant! No, I'm not going to wait! Yes, I will be right over! That's right, I want your Liberal judge ass sitting on that bench when I arrive!"
JB slams down the phone and walks over to unnamed extra #1.
JB: "Are you getting it all?"
UE#1: "Yes sir. Will there be a problem with the warrant?"
JB: "Not as long as I still have 3 days to get it there won't be."
JB then grabs some paper work and runs to his car. He then races across D.C. avoiding enemy mines, fighter aircraft and snipers. He screeches to a halt outside of the Court and runs up the steps. He slams open the door to the judge's chambers and throws the paperwork at him.
JB: "Listen, you have less than 71 hours and 26 minutes to sign that warrant or I'll have your terrorist loving Liberal ass!"
Unnamed Judge: "Always nice to see you, Jack. Here's your warrant. Let's see, that leaves you 71 hours and 24 minutes to get back to your secret spy base. Can you manage that this time without speeding or running over anything? Hmmmmm?"
JB: "You Liberal judges make me sick! My ass is on the line every time I have to drive over here! Good bye!"
JB then runs down to his car, notices the parking ticket on the windshield and throws it away. He then gets in and races back to work. Avoiding various mines, attacking aircraft and snipers.
Yes, the "ACLU types" are really trying to "slow down the wiretaps". 72 hours is just not enough time to get a warrant. What if JB had to take some time off to go look at swatches with his wife? What if he wanted to maybe take a couple of days in Reno when a terrorist call was coming in? Maybe there was a concert he wanted to go see! It's just too much to ask for them to process the paperwork in only THREE DAYS!
Why would democrats, once they are in power, want to give up any power by reverting these laws? Once they are in power they will use the apparatus for their own means, just like the republicans would. The fact that there are two parties to "choose" from is simply camouflaging the fact that we have basically one group of politicians whose policies are almost identical, despite their full blown "partisan" rhetoric. If it were one party there wouldn't be a darn difference.
>especially in the leading classes, that a fascist regime is still better than the uncertainty of an absence of government.
Actually, it's enough for the fascist regime to offer tax cuts for the rich and a "tough on crime" position, to get their votes.
And what are those channels when corruption goes all the way up?
Unnamed extra #21: Yo, JB, I use the secure +256-BitKey fax to communicate, process, and eSig all official documents with the FISA court judge, and I have my wiretap warrant in an hour or far less.
...? Shit, it ain't like I am ever told anything about such things around here. DAMN, I got to find out for myself (#$$%$^&$% am I the only asshole working to save god and country around here &$%%*&#) when everything is in SNAFU mode.
... do you know what you are doing or why, or are you doing that look big, good, and important thing for career management imaging/posturing?
JB: DAMN! why wasn't I told that there is a secure full-color fax at the FISA court, and could someone tell me who makes and sends my secure-faxes in this office
Unnamed extra #21: DAMN, JB, this is a test
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Individuals simply do not have the right to expose secret programs even if they do not like them
I will concede that leaking is wrong if you just don't like the program. But, in this case, the President is in clear violation of the laws of Congress (specifically, FISA and the 4th Amendment).
Maybe you don't buy that our President is breaking the laws he is supposed to uphold. So, let's run a hypothetical situation here.
The President orders five people to break into the DNC headquarters in DC as part of a program of political sabotage. Let's further say that some guy (let's call him Deep Throat) starts leaking information regarding the break-in and how far up the executive food chain it goes.
Is such leaking illegal, to you?
:(){
The above post is a complete fabrication which grossly distorts the truth and seems designed to incite Police hatred, or it might just be a Troll.
Read these eye witness accounts reported by the BBC and decide for your self.
"I saw an Asian guy. He ran on to the train, he was hotly pursued by three plain clothes officers, one of them was wielding a black handgun." and he just sprinted away as soon as the doors opened. and "He [the suspect] had a baseball cap on and quite a sort of thickish coat - it was a coat you'd wear in winter, sort of like a padded jacket."
Every time the subject of the illegal wiretaps comes up I remember the documentary "The Goebbels Experiment", a film on the diary of Joseph Goebbels. In it Goebbels complains about Hitler's surveillance of him and his wish to confront him about it. It is a fascinating documentary and I strongly recommend it to anyone who does not want history to repeat itself.
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
I was just watching some footage last night on YouTube about an abandoned Amtrack station in Indiana where apparently, Government personnel are busy getting the gas chambers, mass crematoria, and other needed processing infrastructure ready. It's been a long time, but the surprise party is finally almost ready to begin. Just a few more last minute preparations.
The initial guest list will primarily consist of foreign terrorists and illegal Mexicans, but don't worry; if there's one thing good ol' King George doesn't want, it's for domestic Americans to miss out on the festivities.
Buckle your seatbelts, kids. America's going all the way back to Auschwitz. It's going to be quite a ride.
I just misread the title as "FBI Raids Home of Suspected ANAL Leaker". More worryingly, it took me a few seconds to do a double take.
If you think /. is far left that probably means you're so far out in right field you can't see the game anymore. Let go of the partisan outlook a little bit, eh?
Slashdot has a heavy libertarian bias, particularly on social issues, and isn't particularly well represented by either mainstream party. The wannabe-fascist trend in the Republican party lately has made them particularly reviled here, but there's little love for the Democrats, especially their ties to the entertainment industry. If we have a Democrat president, expect /. bitching about the RIAA and MPAA to increase even beyond its already prodigious levels. On the other hand, the fact that Hillary is actually a viable presidential candidate is probably Bush's fault, too. ;)
Besides, honestly now. Slashdot? Not complaining about politics? Madness!
Just like Scooter Libby!
So U.S. Citizens are a sworn enemy of the US now? That says a lot.
A fraction of the Muslim world wants us dead. Period. They've been blowing up a handful of people and a boatload of innocent bystanders (many times, Muslims as well) JUST because they're American or Jewish, for nearly half a century. See the Kobar Towers (sp?), see Beruit, see Bali, and hundreds of other places where the crime was being in a place where radicle Muslims could reach a detonator. Let's also not forget that 9/11 was _before_ we continued the war against Saddam, which was halted in a ceasefire, not victory. Then the ceasefire was breached 492 times by Saddam firing at the aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone.
I've been saying for a long time that there is no such thing as middle east peace. It won't happen - period. I don't know why politicians waste their time and our tax dollars on it. No one over there wants peace. They just want the destruction of everyone but themselves, even within the muslim factions. They want to kill other muslims. Islam is about peace?? Give me a F@#$ing break! Iraq should tell you somthing there. You have Suni's and Sheite's killing each other with the kurds on the side. In Afganastan you have the Taliban and all the other muslim tribes fighting each other. But Islam is about peace.... My thought has been lets just turn the whole middle east into a giant glass factory. It would solve a lot of their problems and ours faster than wasting time on "middle east peace". At least it would be realistic.
Just remember - if your from the U.S. - I may not like what you say and you may not like what I say, but we have to defend each others RIGHT to say it.
The Truth is a Virus!!!
Back when Patton was removed from power for slapping a soldier, the Germans couldn't believe we would do such a thing for something so trivial. We used this disbelief to misdirect them during D-Day, by sending messages in a code they had already broken that Patton was in charge of the secrect attack somewhere else. This worked, and the Germans split their resources, which allowed the allies to gain a foothold on Omaha beach.
It's entirely possible that all this is a canard. The Feds may be gathering a lot of data, but may have no way to process it all. So, they let leak that "Big Brother" can see and hear everything you do. The real terrorist stop using their regular channels of communication in place of plan B, which allows the Feds to pick out the dangerous bad guys, because they are the ones using communication channel B.
The thing about the spy business is you never know what's going one while it's happening, and even after the history books have been written, you can be sure they aren't correct.
If you don't think this is possible, check out the history of the USS Indianapolis. The captain was court martialed for essentially following orders, but since those orders were secrets of the highest order, they couldn't be used in his defense.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
It is exactly that kind of attitude that is a problem. Sorry, but if we do not have individuals who are willing to risk blowing the whistle on the government when they do something wrong then this country is SCREWED. It is a sad day when you can be thrown in jail for exposing something our obviously corrupt government is doing. Whether there is a law to support them or not, and the attitude that oh well it is made illegal by this law, well maybe they should have thought about that before THEY did the deed in the first place. Our government is here to serve us , not the other way around, and our government MUST BE held accountable. Just because our current Executive branch thinks they are above the law does not make it so. -Pissed
RFM. The U.S. statutes regarding blabbing about sources and means of intelligence gathering are very specific, and communications intelligence has the strongest sanction of all. Not only is it a felony to talk about it, but even if someone else tells you and you report it, you also are a felon, even if you are a reporter.
In today's environment, these sanctions seem harsh. But you need to keep in mind the circumstances under which they were adopted.
During the Second World War, the U.S. was losing more than 1 Liberty ship PER DAY, along with all of the crews, etc. [It's not really "fun" to go down in icy waters of the North Atlantic. Your last thoughts are probably "WTF" as you freeze to death and drown.]
It was crucial that the forerunner of the NSA break the codes of the Enigma cryptographic machine.
Remember, Slashdotters, Alan Turing was there: THIS is where computers came from. From cryptography, from trying to stop people getting killed.
Unfortunately, the nature of communications intelligence is that if the enemy knows you can intercept their communication, then they take counter-measures. Just like the Germans did, and just bin Laden did when the New York Times blabbed about interception of satellite phone traffic.
(Thanks guys, now bin Laden is even more difficult to track down.)
For that reason, the "sources and means" of intelligence gathering are covered up by a wall of secrecy. It's simple: this is not an abstract debate; people can get killed, lives are on the line.
Back off and chill.
Even those in the military chain-of-command are obligated to refuse to obey unlawful orders. Executive abuse in the name of national security is illegal -- even the Roman Republic only gave their dictators free reign for renewable one-year periods.
Michel
Fedora Project Contribut
20 months it takes them to try to find the person who leaked highly classified information. I hope the guilty party does life in prison.
And, for what it's worth, most of you guys are complete imbeciles with all of the throwing around of words you don't understand, like "fascism", "dictatorship", blah, blah, blah. Most of you wouldn't recognize a real fascist or dictator if one of your favorite useful idiots went down to Venezuela to do a photo-op with one.
the world's biggest gunrunner.
I hope this helps the criminal indictments.
"The message is pretty clear, if you know of anything illegal done by the feds, better have all your ducks in a row and follow every single legal requirement of whistle blowing to the letter, or you're braking the law and must fear retribution."
There, I fixed your post to more accurately reflect reality.
This is obviously a vendetta, but at the same time, this guy had well defined procedures he could have followed to insulate himself against police action, and failed to exercise them. He appears to have broken the law. Should he get a pass when so many others haven't just because, this time the particular abuse is important enough to you? These procedures exist to protect everyone,and by refusing to avail himself of them, he acted incredibly irresponsibly.
By the way, that's never been adequately explained. If this information was so vital, so important that he felt he needed to expose it, why open yourself up for retaliation by deliberately avoiding the proper procedure for whistle blowing? Why give the people who are going to pick your facts apart more ammunition?
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
What part of the Constitution says it is illegal to listen to the phone calls of a jihadist in Pakistan who happens to be talking to call some guy in Dearborn, Michigan? You expect any serious person to think that a warrant on the jihadi in Pakistan makes any legal difference whatsoever when he calls the guy in Dearborn, Michigan? In both cases, the person on US soil is completely incidental to the surveilance.
Or, maybe you just don't actually understand what this program is about but you're on slashdot so you figure nobody will notice?
Okay.
/. Bush and his cronies are all fascists, keeping a war alive in order to keep up oppression, yadda, yadda, yadda.
I understand that, of late, the game is rigged on
But I honestly wonder how much of this response is based on what we think of as being "right". This guy was right because he exposed an "illegal" program. He narked on a program we don't like, therefore he is a hero.
But who is to determine what an illegal program is? Should each federal employee sworn to secrecy decide on his own whether something is legal or illegal?
I can hear the "heck yeah!" calls right now. You will say it was obvious that it was illegal. He had a moral duty to leak.
The problem with these moral arguments is that one can always take another tack -- perhaps it was legal. Or rather, perhaps it was illegal, but known to all branches of the government, which was working to make it legal. Or perhaps it was legal all along. The way we figure out whether something is legal or not is we have a charge, we have a trial, and we have a verdict.
If the employee sued the government for illegal acts (using the FISA court), then I would agree he was acting on his morals. But to hide behind anonymity, make his own decision for the entire country, and then claim to he a hero? Heck no. I will not condone such actions, EVEN if they are for a greater good. If we can't keep secrets, we're screwed. End of story. I'd rather have illegal acts by a country that has dedicated public servants, than each servant deciding on his own whether he likes a program or not.
This is the problem with the highly-charged partisan BS we have going on. It's not just that Bush had a program, it's that it was BUSH. Heck -- he's like the devil or something. We must stop him before he gets to the children! In an atmosphere like that, each side plays to the public servants to do the "moral" thing. The system just won't work like that, guys. We got a lot more problems than one president or program going on here.
If you think /. is far left that probably means you're so far out in right field you can't see the game anymore. Let go of the partisan outlook a little bit, eh?
Not far left ?! Scary dude, where's your mirror.
Too bad nobody seems to care that Armatage (the real leak) is still untouched. No bias here.
What I replied to him about spam applies to "bread and circuses" as well- "The situation is hopeless. If enough countries (esp. the US where most of the spam comes from) outlawed commercail unsolicited email with serious prison time for offenders, the spam problem would dry up... just like the 'drug problem' has dried up."
It's hopeless. We Americans live in a police state and we don't even know it! The "drug problem" I mentioned was manufactured for the express purpose of giving more power to government. Now they have an even bigger "menace" - TEH TERRAISTS!!!! The terrorists who have killed fewer than 3,000 people on our soil this century while 40,000 americans die annually on the highways and half a million die from cigarettes! If they're REALLY interested in your safety, why isn't some of that Homeland Security money going to improving the highways? If the drug laws are for your benefit and not government's, why is the deadliest drug of all sold in grocery stores?
Only in a police state do you have "Secret Police", and I'm not talking about the Secret Service that protects the President. I'm talking about "undercover agents" and "plainclothesmen". Now the American Secret Police aren't just going after prostitutes and drug users, they're going after everybody! (sorry about linking to a site you have to register for, use bugmenot).
With this American KGB and the fact that the Democrats and Republicans have essentially become two wings of the same party, giving us essentially a one party rule, I fail to see how we're much different from the old USSR, comrad. Sieg Hiel! Hail Bush! Death to potsmokers!
-mcgrew
I always thought Americans - above all people - thought for themselves, did not obey orders blindly. Thinking for yourself can sometimes mean progressing from dislike of the program, to disagreeing with with what you do in a profound manner, to seeing that what you do is injurious to the country, that there is no other way, then any right-minded person should take the path they think is right. The whistle blower looked to his responsibilities with an unfashionable weight.
As you say, Scooter leaked nothing, but he was charged for the cover-up. Scooter was a government official, with duties and responsibilities, and as such, he could not wave-by something as illegal as the Plame incident, which IS treason BTW, something for which no one has been convicted. Scooter Libby was convicted in a court of law, before which he had his five minutes. At that point justice was seen to be done. Bush's pardon was an irresponsible act with no foundation other than pure, corrupt cronyism, the president protecting his own, side-stepping responsibilities.
I think the side-stepping of responsibility has been one of the biggest features of this administration, something most of the administration learnt under Nixon. Not get caught, and if you're caught, use "plausible deniability". As a moral code - and the GOP are quite big on morals so I hear - this sucks. It makes hypocrites of all conservatives who support this administration.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
The radical left is communism. Are you really implying that you think all slashdotters want to do away with private property? The far left is socialism. Do you think most slashdotters are actually socialists? Slashdotters for the most part, and like most people in IT, are centrists.
Oh, and Hillary won't be nominated for president, everyone knows that her and Obama's campaign are just preludes to the real campaign. It's going to be Edwards and whichever one of the two of them can raise the most money. But whoever is in the White House will still get bitched at on slashdot. Bitching about politics is a geek hobby. Hey, I bitched about Clinton from the moment he took office. He's too right wing for me.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, if the current Russian, Byelorussian, Iranian or Chinese governments harass and arrest whistle blowers or general dissenters, then it's "Un-Democratic". If the US of fucking holier than thou A does it, then its "hurting the country" (AG "Slick Al" Gonzales - FTFA)?
You know what the difference between those afore mentioned countries and the USA is? In those other countries they don't bother trying to tell you how democratic they are.
GauteL has some excellent points.
You have got to be kidding me. There is no doubt that most of the /. readers are far left. Many comments are radical left. The fact is, that due to the overabundance of liberalism, people think that true republicans are far right. This country needs to get back to its conservative roots, because if we don't, were gonna end up like most of Europe, being strong armed by militant Islam.
It could have been worse.
They could have invited him to go hunting with Dick "Buckshot" Cheney!
Shane
Armitage isn't polarizing. He doesn't open his mouth all the time on public matters and isn't a favorite of the current Administration nor the previous. He did his job. Therefore, he's "harmless".
Also, it apparently was determined that he spilled the beans accidentally and the particular laws that govern the area in question say that it's only a crime to disclose the identity of an undercover agent with malicious intent. Sometimes when bad things happen, it is just an accident.
Right here
p rotection_for_whistleblowers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower#Legal_
I only go to buffets for the unlimited soft serve.
/. has a libertarian bias like Bill Maher has a libertarian bias, all those elements of libertarianism except for the economics. Otherwise known as modern liberalism.
troll troll troll troll, ....
troll troll troll troll,
troll troll troll troll,
troll troll troll troll,
troll troll troll troll,
troll troll troll troll,
troll troll troll troll,
troll troll troll troll,
troll troll troll troll,
and not even a very good one, either. Grow up, grow balls, or feck off.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 19 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Godwin.
We can all say the law has no consequences, as long as someone enjoys the end result!
What the leaker did is called "civil disobedience". It doesn't mean you get away without punishment, though if society finds what you did valuable enough you may not suffer as much as you might have, or possibly they do get sentenced severely but then are applauded later.
It does not mean they do not have to answer for breaking the law. Classified material is classified material, it's not up to one man to decide what should not be classified.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I understand that you probably think that anyone outing Bush on something is good, but...
This is my problem with his outing of a highly classified program - he did it because his personal politics said the program was bad. Let's be clear - he violated national security and put lives at increased risk because of his personal politics. He works in the NSA - he has given up his constitutional rights (he signed that paperwork).
What if the military did this? The military is predominately Republican. Are you sure you want this precedent set? The next time the military disagrees with an order by Hillary they can ignore it? If she goes too far on her anti-Republican agenda they should put her under house arrest?
Even if we just limit it to the NSA, what if they start "leaking" inconvinient facts about all the senators of only one party?
There is a reason for the national security laws, and there is a reason why the constitutional rights cannot apply to armed forces personnel. And it is a darn good reason!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Even if he did violate US Code, he did his duty as an American to bring government abuse to light. He may be legally a criminal, but morally he is right and just in his actions.
How can someone be trampled on for disclosing a government program that is unconstitutional?
What I find so sadly amusing about hardcore righties like him (he's a talk radio radical, loves Savage, Rush, Hannity, etc) is that they can ignore the evidence of Bush lying us into war, abusing our civil rights, exposing CIA agents, fucking the economy, ass-fucking the environment, tea-bagging the military, and tubgirling the entire Iraq war, but it's the "wetback crisis" that finally has them upset. But oh, they blame this on those goddamn liberals who think that the rights of "furriners" are more important than honest "murricans", along with venom for Bush "going along with them," but they never stop to ask "Who the fuck is employing all these illegals?" They may be illegal but they ain't dumb, they wouldn't be coming here if there wasn't any work! Go after the people employing them and you'll see the flow stop. But who makes the money off of that? Republican-owned businesses. Aaaaaaah, now we see the truth. Obviously it's a fucking liberal conspiracy to get these wetbacks in here working for Republicans. *Jolly twirls finger beside head*
I do wish the dems were as effective political creatures as the talk radio radicals seem to think they are. Shit, with the amount of opposition they're allegedly putting up, Bush should have been impeached already. Back in reality-land, all I see them doing is asking Bush if he'd like a rimjob to go with all that ass-kissing they're doing.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I realize most of the /. readers are far, if not radical left, wingers, but when Hillary is in the White House, I expect not to see word one going against her. You know it, I know it.
You really should pay more attention, then. Those of us radical lefties hate Hillary (or at least what she's become.) I'm personally looking forward to eight years of coming up with colorful epithets for her, just like I did with W.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
This is not my sig
...contribute to this guy's legal defense fund?
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
In 2000, at the suggestion of a conservative columnist, I distriubuted clothspins to my republican neighbors in Virginia to help them vote. They got theirs for free, but you might need to purchase one to get you through.
President is in clear violation of the laws of Congress (specifically, FISA and the 4th Amendment).
There isn't anything "clear" about this. The President and his legal advisers claim that it is legal, and the President's political enemies and opposition claim that it is illegal. This matter can only be decided in court, and so far the only case against it was dismissed by the 6th court of appeals.
Contrary to what you may think, "I don't like that program" does not mean "That program is illegal", even if you issue the claim in bold text on an internet message board.
Or, instead, perhaps you are a blind Bush follower. They do exist, as represented by the 26% who still approve of the job he is doing. I do not understand this, or any blind loyalty. As citizens, we owe it to our country to never blindly follow but instead keep a keen eye on whoever is in office to make sure they do not run roughshod over our liberty. If you're truly an American, then you will do so too.
"We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
is completely lost to you.
I think (I'm not a lawyer) USA Government Employees and elected/appointed officials are required by law and personal honor to blow the whistle on anything that is illegal/criminal in the US Government.
...) but never should USA Government Employees and elected/appointed officials go public with government information ... unless ....
There are always legitimate reasons for questioning and requesting legal counsel outside your organization (FBI, CIA, IG, DoJ
BlkCoOp activities are legal (sanctioned) or illegal (criminal), participation in illegal government activities and ignorance of the law is no excuse for the crime or reason to diminish legal punishment.
In this case like the Border Patrol Agents case (about a years ago), the DoJ appears to have a political agenda for investigating and prosecuting honorable USA Government Employees/Officials doing their job, committed to their oath to protect and defend The USA Constitution from all enemies (foreign and domestic). It would be tantamount to treason if they did nothing, and these/past questionable activities by DoJ may be tantamount to treason, but with the fox already living in the hen house, I suspect, all the chickens are dead including the rooster.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
I'm not sure what makes you think Constitutional rights don't apply to military members, but I'll promise you you're wrong. There are some limitations, but they are the same as most employers' limits on their employees (IE you can't associate your company with your own political opinion etc etc.)
The military has a few extensions on their limitations due to UCMJ but all members of the US military still retain their constitutional rights.
As for your comments about ignoring commands, that is specifically against the UCMJ so it's unlikely to happen unless there were a complete military coup. In which case, there are so many checks and balances against that happening, it's a seriously unlikely scenario. And each member of congress, the President, Vice-President and all members of the military swear an oath. that oath is to the Constitution of the United States, no one else. I'd like to see more people in those positions remembering their oaths and acting accordingly.
So whether he broke a law or not, the leaker was definitely upholding the Constitution, which is, in theory, the highest law we have in this country. He therefore did his duty to uphold the constitution (though he likely didn't take such an oath) and was far more "in the right" than if he had kept quiet about it. There are also "whistle blower" laws to protect him and his family in just such an event. Why is the current administration not extending him the courtesy of these laws I wonder?
When a company, any company is breaking the law in their business practices, it is an employees duty to report that company. So how do you get around the "illegal" disclosure of an illegal act? You accept the possible consequences, knowing that in the end you did what was right, whether it was legal or not.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
This was not a case of civil disobedience. The leaker released details on an unlawful program. This is no different (from a legal standpoint) from an informer giving the police information on a drug ring, or providing information about corporate malfeasance.
The only difference was he released information damning to the government. This is just one more bit of evidence that the government of the United States believes it is above the law, above the constitution, and above the best interest of the citizens they have sworn to serve.
The administration is getting back at him, just like they did Joseph Wilson. This is pure vindictiveness.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
This is yet another example of how our corrupt government is trying to retroactively rewrite history (sound familiar?).
The person with the "evidence" showing that the NSA was engaged in illegal, warrantless wiretapping, has all of his assets seized, frozen and property taken, including his own children's laptops! Now the evidence that he DID have, is locked up by the same corrupt government bureaus who are trying to deny that it ever existed in the first place.
The best part of this story, is that Tamm was served with a SEALED warrant. He wasn't even allowed to see why his property was being taken, or to what extent the warrant was covered.
BlackOps? You bet it was. Expect much more of this to happen in the future to try to silence the REAL patriots out there... you, me, and everyone else who cares about the principles that founded this country.
The answer? When you have evidence of anything, BEFORE you leak it to the public, encrypt it and disseminate it across the Internet to hundreds of thousands of people via the web, email, spam, torrent and any and all methods you can.
THEN reveal that you have the information. Once its out there, they can't unring the bell.
it was Bush critic Richard Armitage in the State Department who did the actual Valerie Plame leaking
Bullshit. Bush would have dragged him in front of the TV cameras in shackles were that the case. Armitage is another one of his neo-con cronies. He can break the law just as much as Bush with impunity.
Libby was convicted of obstructing justice.
Are you really that fucking clueless?
No. They have a responsibility to inform on illegal activity.
Well, specifically I was thinking of free speech - they all give that one up.
Like I say, my primary problem is that he was motivated by politics, not security concerns. If he can show that he was not trying to influence elections or policies, but was instead trying to increase national security, then he should be tried and aquitted. But no matter what, he should be tried. Yes, it sucks, but sometimes people have to put their lives and livelihood on the line to defend democracy. Perhaps he was doing that, but perhaps not. We need to figure it out, and the best way to do that is a trial.
If I was in the position of having to leak classified information to prevent a catastrophe, I would expect a trial.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Uhm... the bills signed into law determine what is "legal" and "illegal." Something isn't legal just because the president says it is.
There were laws put in place regulating surveillance. These laws are very clear in what is allowed, and what is not. This program completely ignored those laws, and sidestepped the oversight mandated by those laws. There are laws regulating what can and cannot be secret. This program fell outside the bounds of all those established laws.
It isn't partisan BS. This is between those who believe the US is based on the Constitution, and those who believe the President should hold powers above all others.
And public servants should do the "moral" thing in any administration, even the nicest, bunny-loving, thriving economy, no-war-abroad President. We should all do the moral thing, including monitoring the activities of the government (including the President), and holding them to a higher standard of ethics. They are, after all, representing all of us. Their actions reflect our own morality by proxy.
This is only a partisan issue because the PR has spun it into a partisan issue. If this had happened during the Clinton years, those who defend the current president would've been at the head of the lynch mob. Let's stop caring to which party these immoral, selfish sons-of-bitches belong, and start holding them all accountable.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
At the time, Gonzo tried to justify the program in a similar but more direct way,
and it's complete bullshit. Actual terrorists know that FISA can authorize wiretaps though a secret court and that their communications may be monitored without any public record. No information of use was gained by them learning the court was bypassed by a corrupt administration. Harm was only done to the administration and the backlash is purely political. What the administration is doing is both illegal and immoral. The only reason for them to bypass the already friendly FISA court is to spy on political opposition. FISA has given them all they might need for legitimate terrorist hunting and is dangerous enough on it's own. Domestic spying is Orwellian, unconstitutional and deeply unAmerican - it's opponents are patriots.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Oh, yes, John Yoo wrote a legal opinion saying that warrantless surveillance is perfectly legal. John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is illegal. I believe Congress has been trying to get their hands on the Yoo opinion in order to verify the judgment used.
Oh, and it's not just the President's political enemies. Ashcroft - not exactly famous for defending civil liberties - wouldn't sign off on the legality of the program. Nor would Comey. And whole bunches of senior DoJ officials were preparing resignations. I'm sure you've heard of the Hospital Showdown in March 04.
Oh, and if you think it's not illegal, please see 50 U.S.C. 1809 section a.1.B
:(){
John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is illegal.
Doh! That should be "John Yoo also wrote legal opinions that torture is legal."
I even hit preview. =(
:(){
And for the record - I wasn't that keen on Hillary when she had her husband in the oval office. I doubt I'd be too happy with her if she's in the Whitehouse again.
*kicks syntaxglitch into a pit*
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
if he wants to protect his secrets, don't break the law or the constitution he swore to upheld.
After all, if he feels able to break his oath to uphold the constitution, why should any government official obey their oath to keep secrets?
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 16 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Since the ACLU types tried to slow down the wiretaps, the FBI had plenty of free cycles to go after leakers of secret programs.
What makes you think they ever did anything else? OBL's capture? All the WMD they found in Iraq? Can you name any actual terrorists that have been caught by wiretaps, other than obviously incompetents who use chat rooms and try to trade stolen audio equipment for hand grenades?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
James X. Dempsey of the Center for Democracy and Technology said the raid was 'amazing' and shows the administration's misplaced priorities: using FBI agents to track down leakers instead of processing intel warrants to close the [purported surveillance] gaps.
Oh, I'm all for using FBI agents to track down people that leak information. There was recently someone that leaked the name of a covert operative to the media in a time of war. Based on the timing and the identity of the person exposed, it appeared to be politically motivated. Please use the FBI to track down things like that. However, for someone that exposes an illegal government activity, knowing that the whistle blowing protections are really honey pots, what are they expecting to do with him? Have the FBI track him down to give him a medal? He did what the FBI should have been doing.
Learn to love Alaska
So, if you're a big GB fan, why don't you just admit it? Your post is not about how moral the guy is, it's about making excuses for the fact that the corrupt sons of bitches you and your buddies voted in are abusing as many laws as they possibly can. For fuck's sake, your Attorney General lied to Congress. Your motherfucking buddies tried to impeach Clinton for lying about getting his dick sucked, and now you're snivelling about this shit. I suppose you would have had the FBI whistle blower on the 911 investigation harassed and shot too?
Fuck off, really, Take your shit and just fuck off.
Islam is about peace?? Give me a F@#$ing break! Iraq should tell you somthing there. You have Suni's and Sheite's killing each other with the kurds on the side.
I like how people act like the current violence is simply the natural way of things for Iraqi Muslims and there's nothing that can be done, and are completely ignorant of the fact that Sunni vs Shiite violence in Iraq didn't reach significant levels until 2006 and the mosque bombing, and that before that Sunnis and Shiites lived, worked, married and raised families together with little concern for who was of what religious sect.
Iraq should tell you something. It should tell you that when you invade a country, throw it into chaos by deposing the government without so much of a plan for how to maintain peace in the aftermath, and by the lack of such a plan allow militias to become de-facto police forces, then you invite and empower extremism where before it was powerless. What we are looking at is a perfect example of how to turn peace and tolerance into violence and hate, and because you completely missed the transition, you thus fail to learn the lesson. Good job.
Next you'll tell me that Palestinians just inherently want to kill Israelis and it has nothing to do with how they've been treated, which makes about as much sense as saying Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights has nothing to do with Jordan invading them.
But you're right about one thing: it is terribly important that I defend your right to say such things. After all, if I tried to repress your right to speak, then you'd simply say the same thing in private, with nobody around who knows better to point out how ignorant you are. Ignorance is defeated by light and exposure and knowledge, while suppression and secrecy are its allies.
The enemies of Democracy are
Should we change our business process (to be more responsive) in support of Our USA Constitution?
Should we change Our USA Constitution (to be more oppressive) in support of riotous demagoguery?
Symmetry in questions/intent quantity of letters to express diametrically opposed ideals for USA.
Yep, I know, I cheated by using camouflaged spaces above, but politicians are no better then me.
I am getting to dang phreaky on this stuff, I should check myself back-in for
observation, free room&board, free food, free no news TV, free sex, free drugs,
free movies, free vacations, free medical care, free field trips. Yep, I need
to return to the local NIMH campus, the last free-place in the whole world!
GOD BLESS NIMH AND KEEP USALL SAFE FROM HARM!
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
"Fascist" is such a poorly defined word as to be useless to any form of argument short of these meant to invoke an emotional response.
Most rule of man over rule of law systems are always poorly defined. As the OP noticed, the apparatus of state is simply a facade when people are deprived of their rights. This is the only similarity between such systems but the only difference is a matter of how concentrated the power and how gross the facade. They all degenerate into proscription, confiscation of property, and exile which the US already has, and then mass arrests, purges and other horrors. The only reason for these things is to give and perpetuate the wealth and power of favorites at the expense of others.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This isn't related to the original article.. but..
There cannot be peace with Americans meddling with the governments in Middle East. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Palestine,Iraq.. I think that should cover most of the hot spots of the middle east.
And let us not forget that Islamic millitants were funded by the CIA during the Afghanistan-USSR war.
Back in the 80s when Iraq was an ally, Saddam used to be called the *Iraqi strongman*. And after the Gulf War everything changed.
And while *getting out of the Middle East*, will the Americans leave Israel on its own? Of course no! There will be lots of funding for *moderate* governments and fingering in a countries affairs to make sure that *moderate* governments will stay in power.
The Valerie Plame leak investigation has NOTHING in common with this case. Your Government was breaking the law by wiretapping without warrants. The fact that Bush excused the whole thing does NOT make it any more legal.
You Republican morons sometimes make me want to weep, you're so fucking dumb. Do you think Bush and his cronies give a flying fuck about you, mr "I'm too dumb to understand the law"? Do you have megabucks to pay for their coke parties and cheap women? No? Well then, they don't give a flying fuck whether you live or die, apart from the knlowledge that you continue to make excuses for them, no matter what they fucking do.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing clear about this. There are valid arguments for and against the legality of the program, and no court has issued a ruling either way. So not only is it contrived to claim that the issue is settled and "clear" -- it's completely wrong.
Again, you cannot ignore the Administrations claims to legality without any court opinion on the matter. The DOJ Whitepaper on this subject clearly lays out the Administrations legal claims on the program. I would be willing to bet that you haven't bothered to read it. FISA clearly gave Congress the ability to revise or supercede the statute with new legislation, which they did when they passed the AUMF on September 18th, 2001 which gave the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future attacks. The Administration claims that intelligence gathering targeted at the enemy is fundamentally incident of the use of force. The validity of this claim can only be decided in a court of law, and that simply hasn't happened.
So no, unless a court decides otherwise, the NSA wiretap program is not "clearly illegal".
Um - you've been listening in on so many rightwing strawman attacks, I think a herd of cattle decided to bed down in your eardrum, and has filled your skull with cow shit.
What you are calling "The left" does back the respect of other cultures.
But if you think that means that the same political movement that fought for a womans right to vote in this country, wants a far-right fascist religious culture that treats its women like cattle, then you're grossly mistaken.
It's a strawman attack. And a retarded one, at that.
There is no liberal who supports Sharia law, or wants "Radical Islam" to take over the West.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I'm confused as to how you can separate politics and security in this situation. The "security" concerns of which you speak are precisely the basis of our political system. In my mind, the two are inseparable at this level.
I'm not disagreeing that he should be held accountable for his actions. I just said he made the right choice, by upholding the Constitution instead of supporting illegal activities that the administration decided it would conduct. I do think, however, that whistle blower laws should protect him as much as possible, though I doubt they will really negate the validity of needing to protect classified information. In the end he's more heroic than 99% of US citizens today because he did indeed risk his own livelihood for something more important. Not many people are willing to do that these days.
I'll reiterate that the military doesn't give up the right to free speech, they just have some extra restrictions on when and where they can act on the right.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Were you, by chance, shot in the head during your tour of duty? Is that why you can't tell the difference between leaking military intel to the enemy (for money, no less), and leaking information about illegal acts perpetrated by the government?
So do your parent's mind that you have wallpapered their basement with tinfoil?
I think your tin foil is on a little crooked.
Cover-up of what? How can you cover-up something that you didn't do? How can you be charged with obstruction of justice when there was no justice to obstruct?
The only reason that Libby was charged and convicted was because his recollection of events differed from Tim Russert's. He wasn't charged because he had committed a crime, and he wasn't charged for leaking classified information. He was charged because his recollection of year old events about a crime that the prosecutor knew he didn't commit differed from the recollection of year old events from a TV news reporter.
That would be like the prosecutor asking you what you ate for lunch last week, and then charging with a crime because the lady in the cafeteria remembered differently.
Thank you for proving my point. There is nothing clear about this.
You do realize that the individual who wrote the legal opinion for legal warrantless surveillance also wrote legal opinions for using torture.
Torture is illegal. Period. See the Geneva Conventions. Yoo might as well have written a memo saying that the President is a King and can do whatever he wants; your same argument could be used to defend that.
I would be willing to bet that you haven't bothered to read it. FISA clearly gave Congress the ability to revise or supercede the statute with new legislation, which they did when they passed the AUMF on September 18th, 2001 which gave the President authority "to use all necessary and appropriate force" to prevent future attacks.
Actually, I didn't read the DOJ paper itself, but I am familiar with that argument. Sure, it muddies the waters a bit. But, I still hold that the President is in clear violation of the law. If the argument outlined in the DOJ's whitepaper was really valid, then the recent update to FISA was unnecessary.
:(){
Actually if you'd listened to Savage, it would be apparent that he doesn't like Bush at all, and that he's disgusted with both parties. Dems for the snowing of America about all kinds of stuff, and Reps for hijacking what used to be a conservative party that now is anything but.
But so long as we're going on stereotypes, don't let me interrupt ya.
Don't count on that. She continutes on with 'business as usual', and there's no indication she wont, you can bet this old-school Republican will speak out as much against her as I have against the NeoCons.
And there you hit the target. 'Justice' is not blind. It doesn't even need glasses anymore. Any person percieved as the 'enemy' of the Regime is targetted, while the criminals inside the Regime are free to carry on. Somehow, I really don't expect things to be that much different under Hillary, with the exception of more social programs jammed down our throats and paid for at tax payer expense. For instance, let me give you an example. Here in Arizona, we recently got taxed an extra buck a pack on cigarettes with the tax to be used for day care for migrant worker's children. Now, I'm all for bettering the lot of anybody in this country, and day care for those kids means they're not in the fields picking lettuce, which is a Good Thing. But they could have funded it in other ways. Why pick on smokers? Same reason Ohio passed a law that made a guy's child support go to offset any welfare payments made to his ex-wife. It keeps the tax burden down for Joe Sixpack, and it gives the government more money to play with by taxing minorities.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
One can believe that the leaker was acting heroically and still believe that the leak investigation is a correct action for the Justice Department to take.
We have laws against disclosure of classified information for a very important reason: such leaks can severely endanger national security. Our agents can die and our ability to collect vital information can be squandered. "Loose lips sink ships" didn't originate with Bush. That's not fascism, it's a republic's perfectly reasonable national security law as created by its democratically elected representatives.
Furthermore, you don't want people to start thinking they can leak any classified secret they want with impunity, just because the program may be controversial. Also realize that a leak may not give the full story, and a public defense by a President to set the record straight could require disclosure of yet more classified information that could itself damage our security interests. We *need* people to expect consequences for leaking this sort of information.
Arguably it's the leaker's decision to proceed *despite the personal risk* that makes the action heroic. If he had nothing to lose then the act would be nothing more than a disagreement with the President.
That said, it's disturbing that it took a leak like this to get the President and Congress to have a real discussion about protections for Americans subject to eavesdropping. We should be able to protect our fundamental freedoms while pursuing terrorists, rather than simply discarding them because the President finds checks and balances too inconvenient.
And you call yourself centrist?!?! 0.o
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the legality of the NSA wiretap program. Don't you?
So which is it? Clear or muddy? Or is it clearly muddy?
And unless you are a justice on the United States Supreme Court, whatever you "hold" has absolutely nothing to do with the actual legality of the program, so claiming that it is "clearly" illegal is idiotic.
You mean the conservative roots of small government? Maybe you're thinking of a balanced budget, or perhaps you mean upholding the Constitution and fighting for individual and state rights instead of federal power? Or maybe environmental issues like Roosevelt suggested, or the Clean Air Act that Nixon promoted?
Or possibly could you mean "christian values" or something similar? (Just for edification, religion and politics aren't supposed to mix in the USA.)
I'll agree that slashdot readers seem to be liberal, but I wouldn't say "far left" or "radical left" in the slightest. As you suggest the poles make the opposite seem even further from center, when in reality it seems there's actually a fairly mixed bag. You seem to be "far right" while others seem to be "far left". Most of us, however, see both sides fairly reasonably and recognize them for what they are; two heads of the same beast.
As for the rest of your flame and it's anti-muslim sentiment, I'll just suggest that some folks view the same issue for the US and the "Fundamental Christian" movement.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Sometimes doing the right thing is not always legal.
And stop with the extremely stupid, blanket generalizations. The reason most slashdotters "appear" left-of-center is that the right has moved so far into outer space it's hard to tell what's what anymore. Most people, and most slashdotters, I'd assume, are centrist or slightly left-leaning. Which is now "extreme left" to the lunatics on the right.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
I want to know when the people of this great country will do like they did when King George (interesting the names are the same) tried to rule this great land?!?!?! When will we quit sitting on the side lines booing and hissing, and band together, do like they did in the old days, take up pitch forks and torches, and take back the the house that belongs to the people... Not to the decider?!?!?!
Nothing like people that piss and moan about everything, have all the answers, but never get off their overstuffed lazy American asses and do something... What have we forgotten in the last 200 years or so?!?!? Why do we allow our government to bully us into submission?!?!? We used to be a country of doers... not moaners.
Sigh... it's no use... I'll just get back on the other side of the fence with the rest of the sheep...
Though the Act had formally given legislative powers to the government as a whole, these powers were for all intents and purposes exercised by Hitler himself; as Joseph Goebbels wrote shortly after the passage of the Enabling Act:
The authority of the Führer has now been wholly established. Votes are no longer taken. The Führer decides. All this is going much faster than we had dared to hope.
Do you get it yet?
Didn't?
Oh. Fuck off then.
You do realize that this has nothing to do with the legality of the NSA wiretap program. Don't you?
No, I don't realize that. Yoo is the guy who wrote the legal opinion for the NSA wiretap program. If it can be shown that Yoo also writes legal opinions for other clearly illegal activities, then this is evidence that the justifications for the NSA wiretap program are likely to be shakey, as well.
So which is it? Clear or muddy? Or is it clearly muddy?
There is a thin layer of mud atop otherwise clear water.
And unless you are a justice on the United States Supreme Court, whatever you "hold" has absolutely nothing to do with the actual legality of the program, so claiming that it is "clearly" illegal is idiotic.
Mmm, adhoms. Anyway, you're right, I cannot ultimately decide the legality of the program. I know, though, that if it weren't for the NSA leaker^W whistleblower, there would be no chance for a judge to weigh in on this.
:(){
I wish I had mod points. The previous posters argument smack of that kind of blind logic soldiers who committed war crimes used, and on hindsight probably really regretted. There are laws and there are people above you who will tell you want to do. Sometimes these two things come into conflict. As a citizen, as an intelligent person with free-will, it is your responsibility to decide if it is more important to follow a chain of command or a moral and legal obligation.
What's with all the right-wing cronie-ism? Slashdot isn't going to be a very good platform for this kind of astro-turfing.
Quack, quack.
Wow, you've really been snookered. Contrary to political spin, this is not a domestic wiretapping program although some of its activities occur on US soil. Its not even argued to be a 4th amendment issue. The debate revolves around whether or not the wiretaps are governed by statute--specifically by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. FISA is not a codification of constitutional law.
The 4th amendment protects you only against the issuance by a court of an order compelling you or a third-party (like the phone company) to participate. The privacy of your communications is governed by the Stored Communications Act, the Pen Register Statute, and the Wiretap Act--all of which contain various statutory injunctions against the phone company from participating in wiretapping when a warrant does not pertain.
These statutes all contain exceptions and qualifiers which leave room to debate the legality of a program whose details are at best fuzzy.
Rationalization for Armitage, condemnation for Republicans; what an argument, I'm convinced, just call me another mindless lefty being fed on hatred.
> he did it because his personal politics said the program was bad.
Good thing his personal politics also said that the program was illegal, and also that the NSA isn't the god damned armed forces.
I don't recommend the herring today sir, it's rather red.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
They were illegal. What this person did was expose illegal and unconstitutional abuse. Leaking almost implies he was in some moral grey area. Anyone who doesn't report such abuse is in a moral grey area. The fact that he can be persecuted for this publicly just shows how far we've gone from understanding that the government is of the people and for the people. There is a world of difference between reporting illegal abuse and leaking information. I wish more people would understand that. Night and day.
Quack, quack.
Wow. You lack basic reading comprehension skills. Reread my post. I said most slashdotters are centrist. I said nothing about myself. If I had to label myself, I'd say I was an anarcho-syndicalist.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
> (Just for edification, religion and politics aren't supposed to mix in the USA.)
Church and state aren't supposed to mix. Everyone has a religion even if it is to not have a religion.
4th amendment protects the guy in Dearborn.
And, if you read the preamble, you read that these rights are endowed by a Creator - so basically, the 4th applies to the guy in Pakistan, as well. Because, that Creator created both persons in that conversation.
But as we all know - just because the Creator endows people with rights, and just because a bunch of guys 230 years ago decided to enshrine those rights in our Constitution and Amendments, doesn't mean that people today, can't cower in fear behind racist propaganda and demand that those rights be abridged.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Scooter leaked NOTHING; it was Bush critic Richard Armitage in the State Department who did the actual Valerie Plame leaking
I don't know where you get your information, but there was more than one leaker and the prosecutor did not yet know about Armitage until after Scooter lied. Lying to a grand jury is always a crime.
When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
Wow, slashdot is sure a huddled and scared little group of socialists. Democrats and Republicans both agree, and yet slashdot is so paranoid that its proclaimin America is "fascist". Wow... the panic room is here! Slashdot calls it "the wisdom of the crowds". I call it "lemming mentality". Panic away, libtards. May your foil be thick.
Regarding the proposed FISA amendments, one scene always sticks out in my head:
Senator: "Telecommunications and privacy act? Invasion of privacy act more like! This bill is not the first step to a surveillance society, this bill is the surveillance society"
Republican Politician: "Liberal hysteria"
Senator: "I'm not going to let the Government point a damm camera and microphone at anything they damm well please"
Republican Politician: "We both know, we are a nation at war. The most hated nation om Earth. Do I have to tell you all the lives that have been saved through judicious use of surveillance?"
When this film first came out (Enemy of the State), myself and the people I was watching it with thought how ridiculous this would be. How could a Government justify completely trampling over people's rights and freedoms without a massive backlash occuring. Fast-forward seven years in the future, and it seems we have not only reached, but surpassed that point.
Oh look - a dork!
Just to clarify, the person that leaked Valerie Plame's name should also have had a trial to show whether it was an "accident" or malicious.
Trials are there to detect truth, not to punish people. Where there is a question about legal truth there should be a trial, dork.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Presumably that will be his defense. I don't see where you explain why he shouldn't be tried so we can discover if his defense is plausible...
And more to the point, the legallity of the situation was not clear to lawyers, judges, etc that spent their lives in this stuff. I don't see how he can claim special knowlege. But if he can, then he will be aquitted - and the annoyance of the trial is the price he will have paid to help defend the United States.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Hey, remember when it was revealed that Karl Rove leaked the name of a covert CIA operative and jeopardized our foreign intelligence service? Didn't the FBI swoop in, seize all his computers and haul is national security endangering ass to jail?
No?
Well at least they got Scooter Libby, right? I mean he revealed that agent's name and he went to jail for it!
Hm, he didn't you say? He was only convicted because he lied to a grand jury about it?
Well that's something isn't it? At least he's going to jail for breaking a law -- even if it's not for the treason he actually committed.
Oh wait, he's not going to jail now?
Hm... I guess the problem is that they were actually breaking the law to advance their own interests whereas this guy is whistle-blowing to defend the constitution -- we won't stand for that!
That is called an ad hominem attack, and is a logical fallacy. You are disagreeing with the merits of an argument based on the messenger, and not the argument itself. That is an appeal to emotion rather than reason, and does nothing to strengthen your argument. That legal opinion could have been written by Bugs Bunny and that claim you are using against it would still have no merit.
You have to argue the legal fundamentals of the brief, not dismiss it because you don't like who wrote it.
Actually, no. If you'll read the definition above, that wasn't an "adhom". Pointing out the certain fact that you are not a justice on the US Supreme Court isn't an attack on you, it is an attack on your argument that your position has any legal merit on the actual legality of the program. It doesn't, and you've even admitted that yourself.
Actually, there will be probably no chance for a judge to weigh in on this. The appeals have been stopped, and the FISA statutes amended to allow for the program to continue without any other legal justification. So the only thing that was accomplished through the leaking of this classified program was that our enemies who are sworn to kill as many of us as possible are now aware of it, and our ability to gather intelligence against them has been damaged. Personally, I don't think that is much to celebrate about.
I guess you disagree.
if even ONE enemy did not think of it but was clued-in by the leak then harm was done.
Innocent until proven guilty? Rule of law? Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? Separation of powers? Damn them all if we can catch one minor "terrorist" and throw him in Gauntanamo to rot without trial!
I say if even one agent or government official misused their power, it's worse than letting 10 terrorists go free. Look at it statistically: There are at best a few thousand true terrorists in the world who would actually target the U.S. Even if the U.S. has a 99.999% success rate in identifying terrorists, that means there will be very very few false negatives, but thousands of false positives in the U.S. alone, meaning that the harm done by a 99.999% successful program could impact as many people as Al Queda did on 2001/09/11. How much does anyone want to bet that *any* U.S. program approaches a 99.999% success rate, much less one as subjective as criminal investigation?
They can investigate the man who did the leak all they want, but why are they harassing his children? His children are not accused of any crime, but they took their laptops. I guess they'll just have to buy new ones if they need them for school. ...of course, you can bet that all of their personal material will be gone through - if the FBI is going this far in harassing children, hey, why not log into a kid's MySpace account in search of "evidence".
Americans can talk about rights all they want, but it's incredibly silly how little rights people have if they're young. They essentially stole private property here - likely forcing these kids to restructure their lives to some extent, and almost definitely forcing these kids to seek out replacement units to use. Since they're just kids though, even the libertarian crowd here doesn't think to mention that their rights are being violated.
Won't someone please think of the children?
Islam is about peace?? Give me a F@#$ing break! Iraq should tell you somthing there. You have Suni's and Sheite's killing each other with the kurds on the side. In Afganastan you have the Taliban and all the other muslim tribes fighting each other. But Islam is about peace....
Informative? Stupid crack-smoking mods. Islam has *nothing* to do with terrorism or civil war or tribal conflicts. People are killing each other in the name of Islam to obscure the fact that they're killing each other for power and money. It's the same reason U.S. fascist dictators are acting under the guise of the "War on Terror". Calling things what they really are would expose the power struggles and complete absence of morality.
My thought has been lets just turn the whole middle east into a giant glass factory. It would solve a lot of their problems and ours faster than wasting time on "middle east peace". At least it would be realistic.
Funny, I think you have more in common with the terrorists than you think. From their perspective, turning the U.S. into a giant glass parking lot would fix most of our problems, too.
Unfortunately for you, it is definitely not in the best interest of the current U.S. government to nuke the middle east. A long, festering war is much more useful for their goals.
You are disagreeing with the merits of an argument based on the messenger, and not the argument itself.
To call him a messenger of the argument is disingenuous - he is the author of the argument.
It is totally relevant to discuss the other arguments that an individual has made in order to call into question the credibility of the argument presented. If it can be shown that Yoo has had a pattern of shakey legal opinions not befitting the title of "expert", this would generally mean that you should be extra careful when considering any opinion he has written.
Actually, no. If you'll read the definition above, that wasn't an "adhom"
Actually, I was referencing you calling me idiotic as an adhom. I do believe that fits your definition of "attacking the messenger".
Actually, there will be probably no chance for a judge to weigh in on this. The appeals have been stopped,
I thought the suit against al-Haramain was still around, because they actually have standing to file suit that they were spied upon illegally. Plus, I was not aware of the suits against AT&T going through U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker's court having been stopped.
the FISA statutes amended to allow for the program to continue without any other legal justification.
The amendments to FISA are not retroactive. It only makes it legal now, but it changes nothing about whether it was legal then.
So the only thing that was accomplished through the leaking of this classified program was that our enemies who are sworn to kill as many of us as possible are now aware of it, and our ability to gather intelligence against them has been damaged. Personally, I don't think that is much to celebrate about. I guess you disagree.
You're damn right I don't agree with government propaganda and a highly classified program that shits all over the rights of Americans in a way that makes Hollywood get a boner. Ignoring for a moment that massive surveillance of the kind being used doesn't even work and actually tends to cover up more leads than it opens by swamping the FBI with bogus tips...of course teh terrarists knew that we had massive surveillance going on before such information was released. Get real, do you think your mom didn't go searching through your shit when you were a kid?
Oh, btw, they're not sworn to kill us. They want to get rid of Israel.
:(){
That would have made it Civil Disobedience, and honorable, if illegal.
expandfairuse.org
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Not necessarily. Many people have a job requirement that they expose illegal behavior or actions. For example, the Army trains soldiers to report and not obey unlawful or illegal orders. Granted, not all do, but it is still a requirement - failure to do so can get you busted. Officers of the Court are required to expose illegal behavior, as are ombudsman positions.
On the one hand, the warrant-less wiretapping is heinous and offensive to more than just The Constitution. On the other, illegal activity needs exposed but to whom?
How about loser pays? If it is proven and judged that the warrant-less wiretapping was in fact illegal (not merely unconstitutional), then he gets a free pass - he was right; consequently those who managed and directly ordered it without meeting their obligations to stay within the law and ensure others did get slammer time. If not, he gets slammed for leaking classified information on lawful activities.
Law is so convoluted these days that IMO the days of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" are long gone. If Law is so convoluted that it requires specialist experts it is too convoluted to be of value and use to the people. That the "experts" disagree so consistently only worsens the problem. So how can we expect people to know what is actually legal and what is not? Being offensive or wrong is not enough to justify leaking classified information. The maze of twisty passages, all alike, is so overwhelming as to not be able to confidently and correctly make the case for most people.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
But you aren't considering the opinion at all. If you were arguing the opinion, it would sound something like "FISA cannot be superceded by other statutes because ...", or "Intelligence gathering is not included in the powers and responsibilities given to the President in the AUMF because ...", or "The AUMF is not an acceptable statute that can supercede FISA law because ...", or "This intelligence gathering is not reasonable as required by the 4th amendment because...". Instead, you're whole claim seems to be resting on "I don't like the guy who wrote it, so it must be wrong." That is neither compelling or accurate, and does nothing to strengthen your argument.
No, I was calling what you said idiotic. That wasn't an attack on you -- it was an attack on what you wrote.
Actually, you are right. al-Haramain v. Bush is still kicking in the 9th circuit. Kindof a moot point though, because the case doesn't stand a snowballs chance. The plaintiffs are 1) Internationally recognized for their ties to terrorist organizations, 2) going to have to prove that the surveillance they were subject to would not have been approved by a FISA court, and 3) arguing arguing aspects of the program that are no longer applicable with the amendments made to the program and FISA statute. I don't see that happening, but then again with the 9th circuit you never know.
And the AT&T case won't decide on the legality of the program. It is a class action suit that will only have to prove injury, and that such injury would be redressed with a favorable verdict. The laws passed last week will likely reduce any case against AT&T because there is clearly now legal authority to compel the telecoms to help.
But it does change a lot about any legal challenges to the program now. You can't argue for the program to stop because it is clearly legal now. You can't argue for punitive action against the administration for starting the program because no court has ruled that it was illegal before changes were made to the law. And no court is going to rule that it was illegal back then, but is legal now because the same justifications that were used when the program was started were used to amend the law. It would be a complete waste of time.
> Individuals simply do not have the right to expose secret programs even if they do not like them.
Rather, they have a responsibility to expose secret programs that are clearly against the law of the land. It is not exposing the secret program that is unlawful, it is the secret program itself is what is unlawful. It is your duty as a citizen to expose *any* unlawful or illegal activity you came to know.
By the way, as we all know, a government has any power over us only because *we* decided that we give them that power in exchange of their *serving* us. If we don't like what they do, we can strip them from their power. The idea that it is the other way around, that is, that the 'state', the entity that exists only in a legal sense is the important bit and we individuals, existing in the very real living sense, are mere servants of the state is most prominently spelled out in Mussolini's original definition of fascism. Even though the same idea is sometimes used successfully in populist acts (e.g. "...not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country..."), generally speaking, fascism (and oppressive dictatures in general) is usually considered, by and large, a sort of a bad thing.
When the state has a right to make people disappear/being tortured/executed because they are so-called enemies of the state, or specifically they are (by the state's assertion, no proof needed) terrorist (Bush), imperialist agents (Stalin), jews/kommunists/gipsies/etc (Hitler) then it is reasonably safe to assume that you are not talking about a democratic country.
You may have heard of Tranai, a place where they Found the Way. There a potential killer can be shot dead by any government officer without any further ado. Now there must obviously be a safeguard in place so that government officials don't shoot at innocent people. The solution is simple: any person shot dead by a government official is (well, was), by definition, a potential killer. The US seems to be heading that way, with one important exception: on Tranai the people can go to Citizens' Voting Booths at any time and press buttons to express their like/dislike of any government official. If an official is mostly disliked, his (it's always a he on Tranai) contract is then immediately and very permanently terminated by means of the powerful explosive charge implanted in their 'government official' medal that they have to wear at all times. Now that bit is apparently not that popular in your leadership circles.
(By the way, Tranai is a short story by Robert Sheckley.)
...tying the hands of government agencies so that they cannot take any steps to protect the country from the external forces who would do it harm... Maybe it's not up to the government to protect you. Maybe you have to protect yourself. If you want it so easy that the government watches out for every terrorist, questionable-looking guy and weak tree limb, perhaps it would be easier if you didn't get out of bed in the morning. For if you allow the government to fully remove the liberties it's currently taking away from you, pretty soon you won't have the liberty of getting out of bed in the morning. There really are external forces who want very badly to harm this nation. Try being "eternally vigilant" about them for a change instead of treating your own government like it is trying to load you onto box cars and ship you off to a detention center for reeducation or liquidation. My opinion is that those "external forces" you talk about are more pissed at our government than at individual Americans. They can't name individual Americans that piss them off unless they're part of the American government. Maybe if our government got it's shit together, they wouldn't be so pissed.Wait, let me fix that for myself: Maybe if we required our government to get it's shit together, those external forces wouldn't be so pissed.
Sorry about repeating what you just said almost verbatim! I was so mad at the parent post I didn't read all the replies. Glad to see there are others with the same views.
Wow! Now I've got to wiki "Tubgirling". Hey, why don't you tell us how you really feel? LOL! Nice post.
The parent is obviously not a troll.
Wow. I mean, just wow.
/end rant.
You can't determine at the NSA that domestic spying is illegal? This is your job to know. Maybe people need it tattooed on their foreheads.
If people can't determine what is domestic spying, and what is torture, and what is a conflict of interest, and what is an unjust war -- then I might as well find a cave somewhere, because the decision making abilities of people in charge of nuclear rockets is going to be sorely taxed.
"What is launching a missile?" Is it me pushing this big red button here, while my buddy turns the key saying; "authorized use only, at peril of summary execution" or is it the actual rocket taking off? I'm not sure. "Launch" is so vague.
Sorry to get so "vitriolic" but I'm really sick of this. Getting pissed about the daily abuses of this fascist government, does not mean someone is "piling on" for no good reason. More evidence of abuses of power do not mean "more conspiracy theories" they mean more f'ing evidence. This is not a debate, this is not a theoretical discussion. How can people be so brain-dead as to justify this crap.
Plane and simple, if you can't figure out some things in life, then you shouldn't be around sharp objects. Stop apologizing and finding a reason why Bush can break the constitution, and fail at securing borders, ports and sanity, while he gets to play with all these cool new powers. If they wanted to secure our country -- they'd kick this guy out. Because some enemy doesn't need to invade -- just keep supporting bush if they want to see our Democracy fail.
The Domestic spying was to get dirt on his political opponents, and it started BEFORE 9/11 -- if it didn't guarantee magical security, by looking at random people instead of following the "SCREAMING LEADS" like; "Bin Laden determined to attack" and 72 urgent messages from an FBI man following an Al Qaeda agent. It obviously had nothing to do with security. It was Hoover's extortion campaign all over again. And it obviously worked on some Democrats.
And note, Democrats don't have a blindly loyal base -- so it's actually a GOOD THING that they can get an approval rating of 3% but Bush can't get below 25%. Obviously, Satan and Stalin couldn't get below 25% in this country either, as long as they seemed like "take charge" dudes.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
Instead, you're whole claim seems to be resting on "I don't like the guy who wrote it, so it must be wrong." That is neither compelling or accurate, and does nothing to strengthen your argument.
...could it be...the...Federal Bureau of...Investigation?
No, my claim is that Yoo has written bullshit legal opinions before. Really, torture being legal? Anything and everything that the administration did based on Yoo's opinions needs to be reconsidered; that is my argument. It has nothing to do with whether or not I like him.
2) going to have to prove that the surveillance they were subject to would not have been approved by a FISA court, and 3) arguing arguing aspects of the program that are no longer applicable with the amendments made to the program and FISA statute.
2) Whether it would have been approved or not does not change that it was not approved.
3) Whether they're no longer applicable does not change that it was applicable when it occurred.
And no court is going to rule that it was illegal back then, but is legal now because the same justifications that were used when the program was started were used to amend the law. It would be a complete waste of time.
So you're saying it's a complete waste of time to prosecute executive abuses in the past because Congress caved in the present?
How have your rights (you personally) been affected by this program? Have you been injured or damaged because of it? How is it any different than any other program that the government uses to protect and defend it's citizens?
That's just it, we don't know if it's just for protection and defense. Nobody knows, there's no oversight! Geeze, what the hell is so bad about a little judicial oversight?
Also, if the President is using the wiretapping powers to eavesdrop on political opponents, then all of America is being damaged. The point is, this is an if because there is no oversight. Why should there be no oversight? Because the paperwork is too hard to fill out? That's the point! Paperwork to fill out makes this less ripe for abuse.
Were my rights affected by watergate? Does it matter? It was still illegal.
Do you agree with the terrorist surveillance program now that the law has been amended to make it clearly legal?
I do not agree with it even after the law was amended. Warrantless surveillance is illegal per the 4th amendment. Period. Congress can pass a law saying that it isn't, but I'm pretty sure the Constitution supersedes laws of Congress; therefore, the TSP is still clearly illegal. Yes, clearly. Like glass.
And I'm not arguing against the government phone tapping terrorists. I'm arguing against the government having the ability to listen in on anyone's conversations, without judicial oversight. I'm arguing that such powers will be abused, and you're a complete fucking moron if you think otherwise.
By the way - this was a very specifically targeted program for the NSA, not a broad program for the FBI.
And who does the NSA give their leads to when it comes time for investigation?
We should really just drop this. Neither of us is getting anywhere. You're obviously a lost cause, or vice versa.
:(){
Erm, no.
There is a slight skew toward the right for obvious reasons, but as with the majority of the US population, the bi-dimensional political spectrum follows a Bell Curve, with the vast majority somewhere in the middle and numbers falling off sharply as you go further out toward the edges.
~!J!
+5 Insightful
Support SETI@home
I guess that works if you call anything that goes against what the current Republicans are for "far-left". Fact is, a lot of people here actually hold a lot of what I would call conservative values. Small government, low taxes, personal freedom, balanced budget, isolationist foriegn policy, right to bear arms, free market, anti-censorship, no nanny state, no substities, etc. A lot of these are actually libertarian values, and I would consider libertarians right leaning (it's just that they look leftish right now, as the current crop of people on the right are just plain whack). If you look at my list again, with the exception of low taxes and the 2nd admendent, you'll notice that the Republicans believe in little of that. There is a reason they're called the "neocons" you know.
"Our agents can die and our ability to collect vital information can be squandered"
What you meant to say is "Bush and his corrupt administration could be severely embarrassed if news of their corruption and incompetence were to become known to the press".
Seriously, as someone before me pointed out, the "bad guys" already knew the administration was tapping phones. It doesn't matter to them if it's legal or illegal. The "good guys" didn't know, and now they do, which is embarrassing to Bush and forces them to consider things like "rules" and "laws".
The guy is a hero. Period.
He works in the NSA - he has given up his constitutional rights (he signed that paperwork).
Wrong. A citizen can neither sign away his constitutional rights nor can they be taken away. That;s because rights are not granted, they are inherent. The writers of the Constitution used that wording on purpose. The Constitution only draws attention to some specific rights - it "grants" nothing. Secrecy statements signed by citizens cannot trunmp the Constitution.
What if the military did this? The military is predominately Republican.
A fine but important point is that the military is NOT Republican. The military is apolitical, BY LAW. Now there are quite a few Republicans IN the military (see, the members didn't give up their Rights), but that is a very different thing. The military "being" of any political bent is a very scary idea.
Even if we just limit it to the NSA, what if they start "leaking" inconvinient facts about all the senators of only one party?
You mean like the Bush administration and Karl Rove tried to pressure U.S. Attorney's to bring charges against Democratic lawmakers and back off indictments of Republican lawmakers before the 2004 elections, and then fired them and replaced them with "loyal Republicans" when they refused? You're correct there - use of government departments to advance partisan political agendas is appalling and illegal and should be stopped.
There is a reason for the national security laws, and there is a reason why the constitutional rights cannot apply to armed forces personnel.
Again you are wrong. Military personnel DO have constitutional rights (Rights are inalienable, remember?), they just have additional rules they have to operate under, plus they fall outside the civilian judiciary system, but citizens definately DON'T give up their constitutional rights when they are drafted or enlist.
Like them or not, you are a fool if you equate "Fundamental Christian"(sic) or any other fundamentalists of ANY other religion with fundamentalist Muslims... NO fundamentalist of any other religion (including Christians, whom you seem to fear) has ever celebrated sawing the head off of a living person he disagreed with on TV, or hijacked an airliner full of innocent civilians and crashed it into a skyscraper full of innocent civilians. One sign that you are an adult is that you know the difference between people you dislike or disagree with, and people who hate you and want to kill you.
(1) Name-calling is never a good substitute for at least an average IQ, and obscenities used anywhere other than the battlefield or the cockpit of a falling plane are just a sign of low class. Get out of mommy's basement and learn some civility.
(2) Lots of people in DC get prosecuted and even convicted for essentially political offenses. I will agree with you IF the prosecution stands after the appeals are done. Do you agree that Bill Clinton obstructed justice and lied under oath? ( or are you one the his worshippers who cling to his "aquittal" in the Senate, even though the courts went on to fine him and jerk his law license? ) Oh, I know, Clinton ONLY lied about SEX (while interfering in a sexual harassment lawsuit ) whereas Libby disagreed with a reporter (about something that was not illegal). How about we all go with the precedent ( liberals LIKE precedent in these days of the Roberts court, don't they? ) that the senate set in the Clinton case: it's ok to lie under oath in a court if you think the underlying issue is not serious. ( I guess Libby gets off. Not only did he probably not think disagreeing with Tim Russert about a non-crime was not serious, HE was not even in a court )
(3) Bush has never dragged ANYONE in front of the TV cameras in shackles... name even ONE time Bush has done this. Oh, I know, half the readers of the DailyKos are rotting in the vast chain of Bush-Cheney Gulags right along with Bill Mahr and Arianna Huffington in the Antarctic wastelands.
(4) Everyone in DC KNOWS, because it has been so frequently publicly talked about by journalists who have talked with him, that Armitage was every BIT as opposed to the war as his boss and friend Colin Powell. Powell had the class to keep his concerns within the halls where they belonged, but Armitage did not. Depending on who's recollection you count on he either intentionally leaked it or he inadvertently leaked it. Care to guess? ( if you guess wrong and some journalist says something different, you could be going to jail ) [laughing]
Wrong. Patrick Fitzgerald was informed about Armitage's leak before he EVER went after Libby ( even Chris Matthews has admitted this ). In fact, the Armitage leak was known to the people at Justice before Fitgerald was appointed. Fitzgerald seems to have concluded that Armitage either did not know Plame's status ( and therefore did not break the law ) or that her status did not make the law valid in the case. In either event, he went looking for further lawlessness and he could not find any in the administration until Libby and Russert disagreed in their depositions and he chose to believe Russert.
Yes, we agree, lying to a grand jury is ALWAYS a crime. Libby supporters though see a difference between lying about a provable fact, and disagreeing about a recollection of a year-old event for which there is serious lack of impartial documentation. This is the U.S. where citizens are supposed to be presumed innocent, not presumed guilty. I worry FAR more about the precedents Fitzgerald set in THIS case than about anything Bush is doing in the war. ( Jail for bad memories, Jail for journalists who do not turn on their sources, etc. ) Does anybody SERIOUSLY think it will be easy in the future to get people to voluntarily sit before a grand jury? People are likely to say "no thanks, charge me or go away." If Libby had done that, he would be a free man today. Look how many people get caught in perjury traps before grand juries ( another reason to fear the precedents being set bu Bush haters )
Innocent until proven guilty?
yes, he will get his day in court like any other suspect.
Rule of law?
yes, he will get his day in court like any other suspect.
Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure?
yes, unless you are making the argument that Bush sent some private bagmen without any warrants or other legal instruments
Separation of powers?
yes, that is why neither the congress not the courts rushed to arrest this suspect. The police are an executive branch function.
The rest of your over-excited comments do not warrant too much of a comment because, in case you had not noticed, small numbers of missed terrorists will kill thousands of innocent civilians, whereas a few bad apples in government making a bad arrest (if a particular arrest is found (BY A COURT) to have violated the laws (WRITTEN BY A LEGISLATURE)) will get prosecuted themselves and will either go to jail or need a pardon which carries political penalties for whoever cuts the pardon.
Almost completely agree with you :-)
Consider that the check-and-balance we want in government ALSO applies to "whistle-blowers" (otherwise we would just have anarchy)
To wit: the "whistle-blower" must believe so much in the rightness of his cause, that he is willing to face the penalty of his action with dignity. If he is not willing to face the penalty then he must not be very committed to the idea. Historically, all the great movements using civil disobedience ( like the actions of Dr. King for example, and some honorable anti-war protesters ) have involved persons who did no harm to others, or to the property of others, but who clearly broke a law for a political purpose, and then allowed themselves to be arrested. Their faith in their cause was so solid that they believed that when their cause went before a jury of their peers in a court of law the citizens of this country would agree with them and they would be freed and the laws would change. There is a LONG tradition of this HONORABLE pattern in these United States. Any other form of civil disobedience or "whistle-blowing" is simply the act of a gutless weenie who wants to score a cheap political hit.
How about loser pays?
Interesting idea; usually only done with money. Might make being somebody's boss a risky job
Law is so convoluted these days that IMO the days of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" are long gone.
Agreed. That concept worked early in the country's life before lawyers packed all of the legislatures and started passing thousands of laws that only lawyers could understand. You know the whole mess is out of control when lawyers need lawyers. I propose that every odd-numbered congress only be permitted to delete laws rather than add them. I further propose that a law can only become law if it can be submitted to a panel of 20 completely randomly drawn citizens from across the country (none of whom may be lawyers) and they can each read it and agree about what it means and have that agree with a legislative analysis whitepaper filed ahead of time by the lawmakers who passed it.
The difference between leaking and whistleblowing is completely lost to you.
No it is not. A whistle-blower stands-up publicly and outs the information, up the chain of authority if and when possible, before going to alternate authorities and then ultimately to the citizenry IN PUBLIC if possible. He believes in the rightness of actions so much that he takes the heat for them (possibly gets arrested and dragged into a courtroom) because he is confident the public will agree with him and he will be found not guilty and the public will demand his freedom and demand that the laws be changed. THIS is the model of Dr. King and other TRUE dissenters. The modern method of rolling a political handgrenade from under cover by way of journalists like woodward and berstein and then skulking away with no responsibility is undignified, unprincipled, and cowardly. This form of "Whistle-blowing" is more-likely a political attack masquerading as an honorable act.
they have a responsibility to expose secret programs that are clearly against the law of the land
There are ways to do it (see my other posts in this thread) and this guy allegedly did not do it in the "right" way. ( I say "allegedly" because I am not willing to say he did it until a court rules that he did, just as I am not willing to run around with my hair on fire shouting that what Bush did was illegal until a court rules on THAT )
*we* decided that we give them that power in exchange of their *serving* us
REFRESHING! somebody here actually understands what makes this country's constitution SO unique in the world. We actually agree on most of that paragraph, but please, you Bush critics are so quick to throw-out titles like fascist and equate people with fascists. I might be more willing to agree if you guys screamed the same way when Hillary hired a bar bouncer, sent him to the FBI to get the background files on about 1000 top Republicans, then fired him and claimed she could not remember how he got on the payroll (while she kept those background check files on they guys who might now have to run against her)
When the state has a right to make people disappear/being tortured/executed ... terrorist (Bush)...
Under Bush, NOBODY has been made to disappear! So many here have grown-up in the softness of the USA and have never seen REAL evil governments and therefore do not properly compare even the worst of what happens here to what has gone on elsewhere.
(1) the guys in Gitmo are all known and identified to the RedCross and are regularly visited.
(2) the guys in Gitmo have done something that western civilization was never prepared to deal with, so the "rules" were never established; they are engaged in acts of WAR (not individual civilian acts of crime) but they are not in uniform (so normally they would be classed as spies and shot/traded for good-guy spies) BUT they are not in the service of the organized services of any government (so THEY and not some country they serve) are the only ones who can be held to account for their acts of war. If they were uniformed soldiers, then they would be disarmed and held in camps until the war ends (happened to US/French/German/English/Japanese soldiers in the past and is happening to them now as an act of extreme goodwill; they OUGHT to have been shot where they stood)
(3) As for torture, Scaring with dogs, getting them nude, putting panties on their heads, etc. may be humiliating and waterboarding may be very scary BUT these are not the same as REAL TORTURE. Ask any US soldier, sailor, airman, or marine who was captured and then used in medical experiments, had limbs dislocated repeatedly, was electrocuted, had bamboo under the the fingernails, was burned, was deprived of food and water and exposed to malaria and other diseases, was worked to near-death building things for the enemy. I am disgusted by any IDIOTIC comparisons between Gitmo and Abu Garaib on the one hand and REAL TORTURE on the other.
You may have heard of Tranai...
I have not and I have been too busy lately for recreational reading, but it sounds interesting and I will write the title down for possible future reading. Thanks for the recommendation :-)
The military "being" of any political bent is a very scary idea.
That is precisely my point - and why I think that this trial needs to happen. People in the NSA and the military, etc. need to know that if they do not follow orders, they better be able to explain why to a court.
Being taken to trial does not mean you are guilty - it means society needs to know if you are guilty!
As for the military, I am from a military family - but we are not lawyers. I'm sure that what you say about rights is true, but the reality is that in the military you will be punished if you exercise the wrong free speech, and that is a good thing.
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Is that why you can't tell the difference between leaking military intel to the enemy (for money, no less), and leaking information about illegal acts perpetrated by the government?
WOW, are you saying the subject of this current thread has been all the way through the legal system (including appeals) and the Bush administration has been found to be guilty of breaking the law?!? I missed that bit of news and I guess you saw that somewhere (other than on DailyKos) because I am SURE you would agree with me that everyone (including members of any presidential administration, even Bush's) is presumed innocent until proven guilty in the courts and you certainly are sure that what went on was ILLEGAL (not just allegedly illegal, or possibly illegal, or IMO illegal)
Your argument seems to boil down to this. You think that the wiretapping program was "clearly illegal" because:
#1- You think it violated FISA and the 4th Amendment
#2- One of the bigger legal papers out there that argues that the program doesn't violate FISA and the 4th Amendment was (probably) written by somebody who has made unrelated claims that you disagreed with.
In order to claim that it is "clearly illegal", you would need to argue against the merits of #2, and you haven't even attempted to do that.It is pretty clear that you never read the August 1, 2002 memo that you are referring to. The illegality of torture in the United States is clearly codified in 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A, and the memo makes no attempt to dispute that (on the contrary, it reaffirms that this is the governing law in the United States relating to torture). What the memo does attempt to do is define is what actions rise to the level of torture as defined in 18 U.S.C. 2340-2340A. By its nature, this is going to be a controversial line to draw, but it is a line that needs to be drawn.
"The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
And that is ad hominem, and is a meaningless argument.
Sure it does. al-Haramain is going to have to prove that they were subject to unlawful surveillance that they would have not normally been subject to without the program. Considering the diplomatic standing of al-Haramain, that is going to be a tough sell.
What damages could the ask for if the law has been changed?
No, I'm saying that it is a waste of time to pursue alleged abuses that Congress apparently agreed with enough to unambiguously grant to the Executive branch. Why should you prosecute "abuses" that the Legislature thinks are fine?
But there was oversight. Members of the Congressional Judiciary committees, which included members of both parties, were regularly briefed on the status and activities of the program from the beginning. They even gave they program their blessing.
That is a big "if" -- nobody, not even the Democratic leadership, have accused him of doing this, nor is there any evidence that this program was targeted at anything other than known terrorist contacts overseas communicating with people within our borders.
Then you are arguing against the US Supreme Court who has clearly ruled that warrantless searches are reasonable as long as the situation is extraordinary and the exceptions are clearly delineated.
I certainly am not conceited enough to think that anybody who disagrees with me is a "lost cause". I sure hope you aren't either. I think that is one of the bigger problems with the political climate today is that too many people automatically dismiss what others are saying because either 1) They don't like who was saying it or 2) They might lose some political clout if they concede anything to their "opponents". There is far too much gray area in these matters for any side to claim a monopoly on truth and reason.
I'm not sure if you're referring to me or not when you say someone seems to fear Christians. I never said anything that would indicate I fear Christians. What I said was the "conservative roots" that dl_zero referred to have very little to do with what the current Republican party is actually doing. Therefore, I indicated that maybe, just maybe, dl_zero might really mean "christian values". There is no fear, just the assertion that religious values aren't the "conservative" values the Republican party used to stand for, despite what neo-cons would like the rest of the world to believe.
As for other religions not being as horrible in their quests as fundamentalist Muslims, I suggest you re-read history a little bit and remove the rose colored glasses. You have heard of the crusades right? Or maybe you don't know about the Spanish Inquisition (arguably about religion as much as land) and lets not even get into all the wars one sect has had with another. Northern Ireland mean anything to you? I seem to remember an awful lot of car bombs.
I don't know about you but I've seen "fundamentalist Christians" stand up and say that torture is justified and that we should just drop a nuclear bomb on any Muslim country. If you think I'm "a fool if you equate "Fundamental Christian"(sic) or any other fundamentalists of ANY other religion with fundamentalist Muslims" maybe you should rethink your education, or at least the propaganda you listen to.
If you think the atrocities committed by the Christian church and Christian people are any less horrific than those committed by "fundamentalist Muslims" that's your prerogative. I choose to disagree and see both sides as being completely in the wrong and unwilling to admit that there is another way. Furthermore, I don't see any teachings from either side that support the belief that the actions of the extremists are justified. There is a clear path of tolerance that no extremist is capable of understanding, for whatever reason. Unfortunately the world is caught in a struggle between two extremist groups.
As for your assertion that I'm not an adult, I'll let you believe whatever you want, but I'll choose to think for myself instead of allowing a government unfriendly to my best interests tell me what I should and shouldn't believe about a group of "terrorists". Thank you.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
The rest of your over-excited comments do not warrant too much of a comment because, in case you had not noticed, small numbers of missed terrorists will kill thousands of innocent civilians, whereas a few bad apples in government making a bad arrest (if a particular arrest is found (BY A COURT) to have violated the laws (WRITTEN BY A LEGISLATURE)) will get prosecuted themselves and will either go to jail or need a pardon which carries political penalties for whoever cuts the pardon.
Well, that's the theory anyway. Using the current death toll of 2974, each of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 was responsible for ~156 deaths. In comparison, many notable serial killers have approached that number of murders over their lifespan, and the VA tech shooter was only 1/5th as efficient. In the attacks in Iraq, individual suicide bombers are much less effective. Basically, the idea that terrorists can kill massive numbers of people is mostly a boogie-man argument. Yes, in theory, with the right weapons, and perfect planning, and a major breakdown of normal law enforcement, a terrorist could individually kill perhaps thousands of people. However that hasn't happened in the past, and it's unlikely to happen in the future. It's such a statistically low possibility that the attention it warrants is way overblown. In contrast, the number of people the U.S. has killed in its attempt to bring justice to the masterminds of the 9/11 attack is silly. If the police slaughtered their way through a neighborhood looking for a serial killer, we'd be outraged. When we slaughter our way through a foreign country looking for a few dozen people, somehow it seems justified.
If you're worried about pure numbers, why don't we have a War on Obesity and a War on Traffic Accidents? Both kill many more people than terrorism ever will, and a lot of them are much easier to prevent than terrorism.
Basically, you've fallen for the administration's line that terrorism will Kill You, Your Family, and Your Friends Real Soon Now, so you should be afraid and willing to let them do whatever they want. No matter that we are actually causing MORE terrorism than we're preventing by invading Iraq: The insurgents in Iraq have killed many more people than the 9/11 attacks. I have no statistics, but I wouldn't be surpised if more Iraqis have been killed by the U.S. war than Saddam had killed since the first gulf war. The U.S. is directly responsible for those deaths, so do we need a terrorist watch list for U.S. leaders who kill foreign citizens?
presumed innocent until proven guilty in the courts
But unless someone leaks information about legally questionable acts in the first place, *no one will go to court*. Seriously, how fucking retarded are you?
That is the dumbest thing I have heard in a while...
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
After all, they might remain in a position to actually do something about it by staying where they are.
expandfairuse.org
You win.
:(){
Congratulations on finding the only way to end a "discussion" with this guy. You should have realized sooner - he's never wrong.
Hallelujah, brother!
As a matter of fact those fundamental Christians seem to do far more harm to the US society then muslims could ever dream to do to "Euro society" (which isn't that homogenous a mass, anyway).
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I have no problems with a government investigating leaking of classified material. However, I do have a problem with doing so without first going through the judicial system. That's why the U.S. is such a powerful and just nation: the Executive branch has seperate powers from the Judicial arm. This prevents abuses.
Therefore, your question is invalid, because I don't oppose the investigating of leaked classified material.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Forgot to mention: you asked how this is related to FISA reform. Dude, the whole of Title II of the Patriot Act is modifications to FISA and the ECPA! How is this not related?
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
After all, they might remain in a position to actually do something about it by staying where they are.
That's a good point too :-) but consider that if they went public and there were a public venting and subsequent change in the laws, then they might no longer be needed as a whistle-blower in that position. Remember that the goal should be REAL reforms and REAL fixes to bad situations and that's more likely after a major public blow-out than after a quiet little burble with no citized-turned-hero as a symbol
Using the current death toll of 2974, each of the 19 terrorists on 9/11 was responsible for ~156 deaths.
Nice try. I've seen lefties use that bad math before though. ( Don't know if you are a lefty or have just fallen for that argument ) This would only be true if each if the hijackers had acted alone. They acted in small teams though
If you're worried about pure numbers, why don't we have a War on Obesity and a War on Traffic Accidents?
Nope not yet, but more on that later. Yes you have a nugget of truth here I partly agree with, plenty of things kill more individuals each year (though none makes a body-blow against the society, culture, and economy) Interestingly, you made a very short list; you could have added many more big killer like booze, guns, illegal alien criminals, AIDs, and more
Basically, you've fallen for the administration's line that terrorism will Kill You, Your Family, and Your Friends Real Soon Now
No, I have not. Do not let your hatred for Bush cloud your thinking. At this very early point in the 21st century, increasingly dangerous technology is and (and will be) falling into the hands of more and more nasty people. Right now, most of the nasties who wish to harm us are adherents to Islam whose leaders have convinced them to try to take-over significant parts of the world by slaughtering innocent civilians. We need to be realistic about this and do what we can, first to prevent them getting good weapons, and second to protect the innocent civilians. This is not going away any time soon so we need to get real good at it while finding ways to minimize and hopefully eliminate the impact the efforts have on our rights and liberty. BTW: are you advocating that rather than fighting terrorism we should simply take drivers licenses from most people and ban fast food? ( I'd like to be as far away from you as possible when the great masses find out about those plans (laughing))
I have no statistics, but I wouldn't be surpised if more Iraqis have been killed by the U.S. war than Saddam had killed since the first gulf war.
Whoa there! Do not blame the U.S. for the deaths where some Iraqi (or some Saudi jihidi freak) blows up or guns-down some Iraqis. The U.S. often puts its people in harm's way in an attempt to avoid hitting civilians, when we could have been MUCH safer if we'd had our guys fire from further away or just conducted indescriminatory bombing. And don't just call it a "U.S. war" when part of the reason was that Saddam spent 12 years violating the cease-fire terms of the 1st gulf war (to which the UN was a signatory) and the spineless UN failed to respond. Oh, and the guy was shooting at U.S. pilots on nearly a daily basis while they patrolled those UN no-fly zones that the UN was gutless to enforce. He also kept lying (telling the UN he did not have the weapons, while telling his neighbors he DID have them) while interfering with the UN inspectors so that THEY could not get a good accounting of his actions (thereby averting war). Have you actually watched any of the video of his troops torturing and killing innocent civilians? When's the last time you looked at the video from his chem attacks on the Kurds? Funny the way so many who insist we should not have stopped Saddam from killing anybody he wanted to are so eager to demand we intervene in various world tragedies and want us to send our guys into a REAL civil war in Darfur where we have no strategic interests. Let the French and the UN handle Darfur; they always know better than we do, right?
There is no fear, just the assertion that religious values aren't the "conservative" values the Republican party used to stand for, despite what neo-cons would like the rest of the world to believe.
There once was a part that stood opposite to the Democrats that was fiscally conservative but not to interested in all those morals and ethics questions; It had little to offer the American people an it went away (the Whigs). An odd little party, that started as the Whigs were foundering, got all tangled-up in those moral/ethical questions and had the audacity to say it was WRONG for Democrats to own black people (those nasty Judgemental Republicans). That Republican party gradually lost its moral and ethical roots and found itself a weak and not particularly effective minority party by the early 20th century (when Rockefeller Republicans controlled the party and just used it to protect the money of rich people). When the party went pack to taking positions on moral and ethical issues, it regained its vigor. Like it or not, about half of the people in the country want a party that says nothing about morals and about half of the country prefers the opposite; if the Dems embrace religion and moral issues too much they will lose their base, and if the GOP abandon those things too much they will lose their base. As for the neocons, they are Primarily Scoop Jackson Democrats who went Republican when the Democrats went weak-in-the-knees on defense and foreign policy; they tend to be Jewish (not making an anti-semitic attack) rather than "fundamentalist Christians". You need to learn to take better intellectual aim before pulling the rhetorical trigger.
You have heard of the crusades right? Or maybe you don't know about the Spanish Inquisition... Northern Ireland mean anything to you?
Yes I have heard of all these things. The inquisition and the crusades were acts of the Catholic church (which was acting, to some extent, like the federal government of Europe at the time and exercised many of the powers of such an entity, albeit with the "authority" of the Pope). While these were wrong and EVIL, these have become the boogiemen of leftist histories. The death toll of all added together is dwarfed by the killings of just one atheist thug (Stalin). Every educated person knows that Ireland is VERY different; you have two factions fighting over control of many things, one with historical roots to the primarily protestant England and one that is primarily Catholic. The fight is NOT about interpretations of scriptures; the fight is secular and political but happens to break along religious lines for historical reasons. Show me the video of the Catholic Irish screaming latin liturgies as they suicide-bomb the married protestant ministers and I might agree with you (might make for a funny British TV show...hmmm...)
I've seen "fundamentalist Christians" stand up and say that torture is justified and that we should just drop a nuclear bomb on any Muslim country.
Nice try. I have seen left-wing bloggers call for all Christians to be killed; I guess that makes you and all who think like you evil ( I would not make that leap, so you might want to reconsider too). How many waves of "fundamentalist Christian" torture and nuclear bomb attacks have we seen?
If you think the atrocities committed by the Christian church and Christian people are any less horrific than those committed by "fundamentalist Muslims" that's your prerogative.
Well, at least here you broadened your brush so it could include the guys who DID the inquisitions and crusades instead of the "fundamentalist Christians" who opposed the Catholic church. People who self identify as "Christian" but are really just saying they are culturally Christian HAVE done some pretty nasty stuff (as have people who self-identify as adherents to nearly any other faith/philosophy). What you seem not to understand is that when "fundamentalist Christians" read a Bible they do not find any commandment to convert by
Easy to say. Harder to do.
expandfairuse.org
But unless someone leaks information about legally questionable acts in the first place, *no one will go to court*. Seriously, how fucking retarded are you?
Apparently far less "retarded" than you, given the exceedingly low-brow, and idiotic responses you offer. By your reasoning, I presume the police should break all laws with reckless abandon in order to get the criminals, to wit: "your honor, these officers HAD to break into the defendant's house without a warrant and steal his papers and then they HAD to kill his security guard and they HAD to burn the place down so that he, as a powerful mob boss, would not know we had the evidence... if we had NOT gotten this evidence, we would NOT be in this court today proving that he IS a crime boss!"
It works both ways. EITHER you believe in innocent-until-proven guilty and you believe in PROPERLY getting evidence and starting investigations, or you do not, but do go all inconsistent when it suits your cheap, lame, illogical political aims and then denounce other people with uncivilized gutter language when they disagree. Lots of kids discover that foul language is cool when they are 8, but most are over that by their 9th birthday. Happily, most people are capable of actual, reasonable dialog by the time they are adults. Grow-up and get out of mommy's basement.
By your reasoning, I presume the police should break all laws with reckless abandon in order to get the criminals
The difference is, when police investigate regular criminals, they can acquire evidence via warrants, traditional investigative techniques, and so forth. When it comes to the government (particularly this one, considered by observers to be the most secretative US administration *ever*), they can simply declare the program a state secret, and *NO ONE* will be allowed investigate the issue. Hence, the only way people will find out about these kinds of programs is if someone leaks the information.
Honestly, are you *seriously* arguing that, if the government is performing acts which are, at minimum, extremely questionable, it isn't a person's *duty* to ensure that information reaches the public? Seriously? Because, frankly, that's at best incredibly stupid, and at worst, flat out frightening. By that standard, if someone had found out about, say, Abu Ghraib, they should've felt obligated to keep their mouth shut. Are you *really* arguing for that?